Further to John Cole’s post on South Dakota’s proposed law over at Balloon Juice (and my post about it below), consider this map (via Pleated Jeans), compiled from Census data:
41. South Dakota: highest rate of forcible rape 76.5 per 100,000
There’s that “forcible” word again.
I followed the links to try to determine what “forcible” means. I’ve spent fifteen minutes on teh Google thus far, and the answer is, “I don’t fucking know.” The map references census information; the census information provides a link, which sends you to a PDF download, which, in turn, sends you to a dead link about dinosaurs. I searched the FBI’s website and found that there seems to be some dispute about the definition of “forcible rape.” I dug a little deeper and found that dispute relates to whether or not to include men as victims. (They should be.) There seems to be no clarification about the word “forcible”:
It is well known that the NIBRS definition of Forcible Rape allows for the possibility of a male victim and a female offender, which is not permissible in the Summary system. However, there are additional, albeit subtle, differences in reporting forcible rape between the NIBRS and Summary system as well.
In the Summary system, forcible rape is defined as “The carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will.” (Emphasis added) (UCR Handbook [2004], page 19.) In the NIBRS, forcible rape is defined as “The carnal knowledge of a person, forcibly and/or against that person’s will or not forcibly or against the person’s will in instances where the victim is incapable of giving consent because of his/her temporary or permanent mental or physical incapacity.” (Emphasis added) (NIBRS Volume 1: Data Collection Guidelines [August 2000], page 33.)
The discrepancy exists with the and/or wording of the NIBRS definition. Literal interpretations of the definitions indicate that Summary agencies should ensure that both circumstances should be met before classifying an offense as a Forcible Rape and NIBRS agencies need only one circumstance to meet the classification. However, the national Program staff do not discern a substantive difference between the two definitions outside of gender; the change in language reflects a clarification of the intent of the collection of this offense rather than a modification. There is not a substantive difference between the Summary and NIBRS definitions on this particular point, i.e., in either system, the carnal knowledge is obtained forcibly and/or against the respective victim’s will.
The FBI requests that all law enforcement agencies, whether the agencies submit data via the Summary system or the NIBRS, report forcible rapes as appropriate.
In any event, I don’t know how “forcible rape” is defined and I haven’t done much investigation on the methodology of the map, but my gut reaction is that South Dakota’s rapiness combined with South Dakota’s high prevalence of binge drinking, combined with the fact that this law is even being considered means that women may need to get the hell out of that state.
What the fuck is going on in this country right now? It’s getting to the point where women should just sign up to be raped when they’re, say, 18, since it seems the Assholes on the Right don’t give a crap about a woman’s right to choose what goes in and what pops out of her body.
Call it the “female draft.”
If we protest, just ignore us. Deep down, we really want to be drafted.
[cross-posted here at Balloon Juice]
Is it illustrative I think WI received the only positive title on that map? I’m so proud. This calls for a shot.
Course, “Douchebags That Vote Out One of the Only Principled Politicians in the Country” might’ve been too long. Also “Calling the National Guard on Civil Servants.”