Nameless Woman Accuses Famous Athlete of Sexual Assault

Posted by Enrique on 03.10.2010

A question of incentives



As you may have heard, last week Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger was accused of committing sexual assault at a Georgia nightclub. You certainly didn't hear the name of his accuser, since it's standard practice for authorities and the press to preserve the anonymity of women who make allegations of sexual predation.

Funny, isn't it? (Not ha-ha funny.) A well-known athlete has been accused of a heinous crime, and his accuser's identity is kept confidential. In a free society, is such a practice appropriate? Certainly, some may argue the privacy of women who make rape allegations should be protected, what with the humiliation that results from such a monstrous violation. But that's assuming the allegations are true. What if they're not? What exactly is the disincentive for a woman to make a false accusation of rape?

The story so far…

Women are human beings, and therefore prone to imperfections, such as occasional exhibits of wanton cruelty and vindictiveness. Men are also human beings, so it's conceivable some males may be prone to rude behavior in the pursuit of sex, and in extreme cases that rude behavior can result in criminal violence. But society at large tends to view accusations of sexual misbehavior by women against men with less than healthy skepticism. This is exemplified in the way police typically withhold the names of women who make rape allegations.

The latest high-profile example of this practice involves two-time Super Bowl winner Ben Roethlisberger, who was accused last week of not understanding no means no:

Pittsburgh Steelers Quarterback Ben Roethlisberger has hired high-profile attorneys today in response to complaints made by a 20-year-old Georgia College & State University student that Roethlisberger allegedly sexually assaulted her early Friday morning at a nightclub in Milledgeville, Ga.

Special Agent Tom Davis of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation said authorities would be reviewing videos from Milledgeville nightclubs Roethlisberger, 28, visited late Thursday and early Friday. Agent Davis said the woman has an attorney but he would not provide the name. […]

[Roethlisberger's lawyer] released a statement today which read: "The facts show that there was no criminal activity. No sexual assault occurred. We are cooperating with the investigation. Ben is completely innocent of any crime. The truth of the events should cause this investigation to end without a criminal charge. I will not go into details at this time, but will in the future."

Well, you'd expect him to say that, wouldn't you? As of this writing, there have been no charges filed, and yet a respectable news outfit like CBS is running stories about some young woman named Amber Hanley who was allegedly propositioned by Roethlisberger that same night. The reason we know Hanley's name is she has only accused Big Ben of being impolite – if she had accused him of rape, she'd be "a 21-year-old college student." Of course, Hanley's recollection of events is technically irrelevant to the sexual assault allegations against Roethlisberger – but that isn't stopping the CBS from reporting it. That would suggest the CBS doesn't think Big Ben deserves the benefit of doubt.

Why doesn't he? We seem to nonchalantly accept the fact a woman's privacy should be protected when she makes an accusation of sexual assault. Maybe we should take a moment to consider the wide cultural latitude we give to allegations that cause incredible damage to a person's reputation. For one thing, what exactly is "sexual assault?" It must be different from "rape." But how different? What range of improprieties fall under the category of "sexual assault?" Does slapping a girl on the ass count? Rude language? I would think "sexual assault" has a wide variety interpretations, which poses a problem when the government is in charge of policing it.

It also poses a problem for the reputation of the man accused of sexual assault. I don't have any handy statistics on the number of sexual assault allegations that turn out to be false, but I'm sure it's more than zero. And when you consider the fact that the accuser receives automatic anonymity, and that the penalties for making false accusations are relatively slight, I wouldn't be surprised if it's much more than zero. That's an awful prospect, especially since accusations of sexual assault are much more destructive than accusations of other crimes. Here's a thought experiment, courtesy of the fine people at Man Woman & Myth:

For example, if a man and a woman are in an elevator and the woman subsequently makes a claim that she was groped by the man, what happens? The ugly truth of the matter is that the man is guilty until proven innocent. However, as there is no way to prove innocence, the man becomes permanently guilty by default. […]

Now, compare the allegation of sexual harassment, with an accusation of theft. What if the woman had accused the poor chap of stealing money from her handbag whilst in the elevator? Well there we have a different scenario. There is no instantaneous assumption of guilt. His protestations would be given a fair hearing and people would engage their brains before making a judgement as to likely guilt or innocence.

We would think: "why would he steal from her? He is not a criminal he's a married man with respectable work. An upstanding citizen." With a charge of theft made by a woman against a man, he is innocent until proved guilty. Why is there such a difference in our appraisal of him? What is it about the charge of sex assault against a man that bypasses all of our intellect and short-circuits our normal judgements? Why is he guilty of groping because she says so but unlikely to be guilty of theft because she says so?

Of course, we have no way knowing if Roethlisberger is an upstanding citizen, but we have no evidence he's a predator either. Or do we? As many reports remind us, this isn't the first time Big Ben has been accused of sexual misconduct. In 2008, Roethlisberger was accused of raping a woman in Lake Tahoe – actual rape, not "sexual assault." Many people would consider this evidence of Roethlisberger's guilt – after all, if you're accused twice of sexual violence, at least one of them must be true, right?

But it's also plausible that famous athletes are more likely than the general public to be targets of false accusations. While it's easy for many people to assume Big Ben is capable of horrible behavior, it's not inconceivable to surmise his accusers may be motivated by something other than righteousness. This AP story from last July reported that local law enforcement officials declined to investigate Big Ben's alleged assault of a "31-year-old Nevada woman." Although that months-old article preserved her confidentiality, we know now her name is Andrea McNulty. The reason we know her name is she filed a civil suit against Roethlisberger, rather than a criminal complaint. Can anyone think of a reason why a woman accusing someone of rape would sue the bastard instead of press charges against the bastard? There's no way to know for certain, but one possible explanation is the accuser is full of shit. (You'll be pleased to know McNulty's attorney is "aggressively looking into" the latest allegations against Roethlisberger.)

It's also possible Roethlisberger is a criminal and deviant. Until charges are filed and the matter is properly adjudicated, we can't know for sure. In view of that, I would suggest we be circumspect about such serious allegations. And we might want to take the opportunity to ask ourselves – Why does the law treat a man's reputation as disposable, and a woman's word as beyond reproach? In an era when more women than men graduate from college, and when the unemployment rate for women is lower than for men, perhaps the willingness to view women as perpetual victims is outdated.