On Monday, three of the Central Park Five finally got to attend a high school graduation and receive honorary diplomas. The three men missed their original graduation, as they were in prison for the 1989 rape of a woman jogging in New York’s Central Park–a crime they did not commit.

Yusef Salaam, Kevin Richardson, and Raymond Santana Jr. joined 60 teenagers graduating from Bronx Preparatory High School on Monday, surrounded by family members. Marielle Colucci, a teacher at Bronx Prep, had used a 2012 documentary about their wrongful conviction when teaching students about the justice system. Earlier this year, Colucci’s students asked if they could meet the men, and Richardson came to speak to the class.

Later, the school invited the men to the graduation ceremony. Even though they had received diplomas while in prison, they never attended a ceremony. Colucci said that it’s important to inform students about what happened to these men, as all of her students are members of minority groups and could face the same discrimination.

Now in their 40s, three of the Central Park Five graduate from high school, receive honorary degrees. https://t.co/NAHFYTxfjl pic.twitter.com/EXU1H8AQfX

— Okayplayer (@okayplayer) June 27, 2017

In April 1989, a young woman was brutally beaten and raped in Central Park while on a run. Trisha Meili, the victim, barely survived. Police claimed that it was the deed of a group of schoolboys, and that at least four had taken part in the attack. Ultimately, the number of convicted assailants rose to five: Salaam, Richardson, Santana Jr., Kharey Wise, and Antron McCray. All are black or Hispanic. They became known as the “Central Park Five.”

The five were not allowed to see their parents before being questioned, and were interrogated for hours; none of their DNA matched what was found on the victim’s body, yet they all were found guilty. Eleven years later, Wise, who was 16 at the time of the rape, ran into a man in prison who confessed that he was the one who committed the crime. After confessing, police found that his DNA matched the DNA that was found on Meili.

But back in 1989, many thought the five men were guilty, and even Donald Trump played a part in vilifying them. Trump, who at the time was a real estate developer in New York, took out a full-page ad in the Daily News.

“How can our great society tolerate the continued brutalization of its citizens by crazed misfits? Criminals must be told that their CIVIL LIBERTIES END WHEN AN ATTACK ON OUR SAFETY BEGINS!” it said, complete with Trump’s now-famous capitalization.

As Trump complains about a “witch hunt,” remember his calls to execute the Central Park Five and refusal to accept that DNA exonerated them.

— Deborah Roseman (@roseperson) June 16, 2017

He also wrote that the death penalty should be brought back. The boys were between ages 14 and 16 at the time. As recently as last year, Trump still maintained that they were guilty. In an interview before the election, Richardson drew parallels to Trump’s campaign claim that Hispanic illegal immigrants are drug traffickers and rapists.

“Just like those ads, that speech was a call for extreme action based on a whole set of completely false claims. It seems that this man is for some strange reason obsessed with sex and rape and black and Latino men,” Richardson said.

One of the five, who changed his name, pointed out how Trump has a tendency to disregard facts and science and instead go with his own opinions. “Donald Trump told the world that my life had no value, no quality,” he said. “And he’s still saying pretty much the same thing today.”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Three of the Central Park Five Men Receive Belated Honorary Diplomas appeared first on Law Street.

Happy almost Friday, folks! This week is almost over. THANK GOODNESS. Coming back after a holiday is rough, am I right?

If you have a uterus and you live in Michigan, your week has been especially rough. Shit is getting REAL over there in the Mid-West. Lawmakers in the Great Lakes State are currently debating a bill that would require women to buy rape insurance.

That’s right. Rape insurance.

I tell you, this shit just gets more ridiculous every week I write about it. It’s actually insane.

Here’s how it’s going down. Lawmakers in Michigan don’t want health insurance to cover abortion. Why? They’re not fans of a woman’s right to choose, and so, while they can’t completely outlaw abortion, they can use insurance technicalities to restrict women’s options.

What happens when insurance doesn’t cover abortions? Women either have babies that they don’t want or are unable to carry, or they pay a hefty price to terminate. Obviously, not ideal. So! While Wolverine legislators were batting around this nifty little bill, the same question came up that always comes up when we start talking about restricting women’s access to abortions.

“But what about cases of rape and incest?!” Because, empathy. For like, five seconds.

The legislators of Michigan had an answer ready and waiting. Make women buy additional insurance to cover the possibility of needing an abortion in the future.

This little tidbit prompted Republican Gov. Rick Snyder to veto the bill last year when it was first introduced. He wasn’t too keen on legislation that required women to pay for abortions out of pocket, unless of course, they had paid extra for that separate insurance rider. “I don’t believe it is appropriate to tell a woman who becomes pregnant due to a rape that she needed to select elective insurance coverage,” Snyder said when he rejected the bill last winter.

Well, duh. Obviously.

That would be like telling a man who had a heart attack that he couldn’t have life-saving surgery, because he didn’t plan ahead and book an operating room beforehand. Or like telling a cancer patient that she can’t receive treatment because she hadn’t reserved a chemo supply ahead of time. Plan ahead, people, be prepared! For all of the possible things that could happen to you ever! (Because that’s possible.)

Folks, let’s get one thing straight. No one plans to get an abortion. Needing one is definitely not a desirable situation to be in. Really, abortions are a last resort. An emergency measure, taken after something has unintentionally gone wrong. Maybe she got raped. Maybe the condom broke. Maybe she forgot to take her birth control pill that day. Maybe she just discovered that the baby won’t survive the pregnancy or infanthood.

Whatever the situation, abortions are last ditch efforts to rectify a bad situation that wasn’t planned for. So asking women to plan for unplanned emergencies — and be monetarily penalized either way — makes absolutely no sense.

It’s about as logical as this guy.

But, alas, the anti-choicers think it does make sense, and they’ve got a rage-inducing argument as to why that is. One prominent advocate of the bill claimed that rape is like a car accident, and it was totally fine to make women pay for extra insurance in order to prepare for it.

This is so incredibly gross on so many levels.

First of all, we’re comparing women’s bodies to cars right now. To cars. Inanimate objects that can be damaged, fixed, or replaced. One car is much like another—it gets you from A to B. Women’s bodies are not like cars. They are not replaceable. Their value doesn’t depreciate after a traumatic event. They are not interchangeable. They are not for you to use.

Actually, women’s bodies are attached to living, breathing, human beings. They happen to have vaginas. But they also have lives, passions, emotions, and agency. And when you liken their bodies being raped to a car being crashed, you ignore the human involved in the trauma. You assume she’s an object, instead of a subject.

Stop that right now.

Second of all, expecting women to prepare themselves for rape is absurd and cruel.

Preparation assumes the inevitable. You prepare for a car accident—if we’re going to follow through with this terrible example—because being involved in one, someday, is more or less inevitable. People are stupid. Let a bunch of idiots operate heavy machinery near each other, and things are bound to go wrong eventually. Better prepare yourself for the asshole who forgot to use his blinker and caused a pileup on the freeway.

But rape? That shouldn’t be inevitable. Rape doesn’t happen because of human error. Rape isn’t something that idiots do. Rape happens when one person makes a conscious decision to violate another person. Consent isn’t given. Accidents aren’t made. This isn’t an “oops I didn’t mean to get sexually violent with you, my bad,” kind of situation.

Not at all.

When we treat rape like it is inevitable, we give rapists a free pass. We’re sending them the message that, hey, you’re only human! People make mistakes. No big deal. But it is a big deal. And it wasn’t a mistake. This isn’t like forgetting to use your blinker, or running a red light. This is violence and coercion. And there’s always another option.

So, to all the anti-choicers of Michigan, I have a question for you: If a man was shot, and he had to pay out of pocket to have the bullet removed because he hadn’t planned ahead with elective murder insurance, how would you feel about that?

Probably like this kid.

Not so good, I’m guessing. Because it’s ridiculous to ask a man to prepare himself for the possibility that one day, he might be a homicide victim. No one expects to be on the receiving end of that kind of violence.

So stop asking women to do the same. We don’t need to prepare for our impending rape. We shouldn’t be waiting expectantly, insurance policy in hand, to be the victims of sexual violence. And we sure as hell aren’t cool with legislators putting a price tag on our uteruses.

So, stop it, OK? Just stop it.

Stop restricting our access to safe abortions. Stop legislating our bodies. Stop objectifying us. And stop being so cavalier when it comes to rape.

Do you think the GOP can handle that, folks? Discuss!

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [American Life League via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post LADIES: Michigan Says You Need Rape Insurance appeared first on Law Street.

In 2011, a debate over the FBI’s definition of rape emerged. Each year, the FBI creates Uniform Crime Reports, a cooperative effort to gather crime statistics from various jurisdictions all across the United States. In 2011, the FBI was still using a definition that was written in the 1930s. It constituted rape as, “the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will.” This definition came under heavy fire, slammed for being incredibly narrow. There were numerous problems with this definition, but one of the most heavily cited problems included that under this definition, men could not be victims of rape. Another was that under this definition, the victim must have tried to physically resist the assault, preventing victims who were drugged or terrified from being counted. It also could not include any other kind of sexual assault, such as forcing a victim to perform sexual activities. Incest and statutory rape were both excluded.

As a result of this archaic definition, thousands of rapes were not being included in the Uniform Crime Reports each year. After intensive lobbying from special interest groups, law enforcement, and Congress; the FBI did eventually change its definition, in March of 2012. The new definition reads: “the penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.” This definition will be put into place for the first time in the Uniform Crime Reports of 2013.

Despite the old definition used by the FBI, many states and cities had long since updated their methods of defining rape and sexual assault. In the years between state statutes updating their definitions, and the FBI taking the same steps, cities and states had to report two separate pieces of data: the ones that were included in a state statue’s usually broader definition, and the smaller number that fell into the FBI’s narrow definition. For example, in 2010, NYPD reported 1,369 rapes, but only 1,036 were entered into the FBI’s database. Minneapolis actually over-reported their rapes, stating that the cases they reported were accurate according to their modern definition, and that they did not have the resources to filter out cases for the FBI’s reports.

One of the few places that did not take efforts to break down the data this way was the city of Chicago. In 2010, Chicago had approximately 1,400 sexual assaults. Not a single one of these made their way into the FBI report, because the FBI did not accept the way that Chicago reported their rapes. For years, Chicago was not included on the FBI list of cities, or any of the underlying data because of this lack of reporting. The first year in which Chicago will actually be able to report their rape statistics accurately will be 2013, so expect changes to violent crime statistics to happen in the new Uniform Crime Reports to be released for 2013. If the measure of violent crime were based on murder, robbery, and aggravated assault (excluding forcible rape), Chicago, Ill. would rank 33 on the overall list of Most Dangerous Cities for calendar 2012.

Click here to read more Crime in America coverage.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Defining Rape: The FBI Takes Action appeared first on Law Street.