This article is about the Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback being accused of sexual assault for the second time. I think this ties into the class because the case has been dropped from the DA for the lack of any evidence, so it seems that it is all hearsay evidence. This could be a case where the girl was trying to take advantage of the superstar by accusing him of assualting her, or it could be a case in which the prosecution just didnt have enough evidence to satisfy the burden of proof to convict Ben. Either way he is not going to get in trouble by the law for whatever happened however he may be suspended by the league for violating the players code of conduct policy. Ben has been accused of assaulting a girl before and it makes people wonder if girls are just trying to take advantage of a celebrity or is he getting away with these assaults because of lack of evidence. The prosecution pretty much said in their press conference that they are confident that Ben assaulted the girl but cannot prove without a reasonable doubt to a jury that he is responsible, also it did not help that the girl, for some reason, did not want to press charges. The medicial examiner said they found male DNA but not enough to make a DNA profile. I think this would have come to a different outcome if they were in fact able to get a DNA profile from the sample.The case shows that there is in fact a burden of proof that needs to be satisfied for the DA to persue a case, and do not just go after people to punish them for supposably committing crimes.
Ben Roethlisberger in Question.... Again
No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://www.psychologicalscience.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-t.cgi/1660
It makes you wonder whose word you should take in this case. There seems to be a lot of bad press on Ben Roethlisberger not only on this case, but in past accusations as well. I am a huge football fan but sometimes they do in fact get treated differently than the general public offender. It very well could be hearsay and falsified by the perp. By falsely claiming that a person was assaulted the supposed criminal's name is dragged through the mud. In this case, the person in question is a two-time Super Bowl champion. I'm sure he has run into quite a few women, let alone the ones that want to make themselves famous by associating their name with him in the news.
-- meant to say "victim", not perp!
What bothers me in this article and comment is that an assumption has been made. There is no proof that Roethlisberger committed the crime, but there is no proof that this woman made it up either. EVERYONE is innocent until proven guilty. However, Ben's past assault accusation makes him less reliable than a non-superstar woman. I believe that her word is more valid than his at this point. It is possible that the woman is accusing him for his money and she might hope to settle the case outside of court which could be a reason for her not pressing charges. Another aspect of this case that should be noted is Roethlisberger's fame. He is a nationally known rich white male. He could very well see himself above the law, as he is to some extent worshipped by the public. Anyone who becomes famous has a change of paradigm, which could affect them psychologically. I think there is much to be studied in the psychology of fame. In reference to this class, fame related crime would be interesting to research as well as fame created from crime.
I thought this was an interesting case. It is hard to take a side in this case because everything is a he said/she said type of deal. Its does make me wonder why she would go after him twice for the same charge, and he still can get away with it. Celebrities as seen in many cases usually get the better end of the deal then most "normal" people in society. They are more then likely to get away with something that they did that others wouldn't even get away with. So it does make me wonder about who is right, the woman who might be trying to get some money or was actually raped, or the well known football star getting away with sexual assault or is just the victim of someone after his money.
i agree with the previous post. i think that celeberties do get treated differently than regular people because they have money. Whyen one gets into trouble they can afford to get really good lawyers that will make it easier to get them off. An example is the O.J. Simpson case. He could afford the best lawyers in the country and he got off with a crime that he most likely commited.
If the celeberties aree infact innocent thean it's not fair that these men or women are being targets for a lot of greedy people, but i guess if they stay out of the situations that could get them in trouble then they wouldnt have to worry about it...
These kinds of things are hard to really pick a side on. The fact that there has been a history with him involving assault does not help his case, but does that mean he should be assumed guilty at all times in the future. It is also true that often times women will be compliant and then later, out of anger, regret for what they did, or sometimes for money, they will turn around and say it was rape or some kind of unwanted sexual interaction. I do not find it fair that in so many cases a person's entire record is ruined or they are wrongfully charged just because the words of one person were taken to heart (often times the words of the "wronged" woman). At the opposite end of the spectrum, however, there are too many instances where a person guily of assault gets off without any kind of punishment. I think that is why these cases are so delicate and cannot be handled the same way many cases are.