FREE ESSAY ON MINISTER JAILED DURING RAPE TRIAL

MINISTER JAILED DURING RAPE TRIAL

MINISTER JAILED DURING RAPE TRIAL
Summary
Supreme Court Justice Richard Buchter jailed Jung Woo Lee, a fifty two year old pastor at
a church in Flushing, for raping his twenty-one year old niece. Lee said that he realized
he was attracted to her almost as soon as she arrived "because she was wearing short
shorts and also the way she crossed her legs, like movie star Sharon Stone in Basic
Instinct." Lee admits to having sex with the niece, but not raping her. When asked if he
thought she was leading him on, he said that he has no idea how women's minds work and
could not give a straight answer. The prosecutors say that the only reason why he even
admitted to having sex with her is because they found his sperm stains on her pants.
The alleged victim arrived in the United States on a student visa on May 23, 1998. She
was to live with her aunt and uncle while studying English at Fordham University. On June
5, the uncle testified, he told the girl that he was fond of her and kissed her. They
made an agreement that she wouldn't tell anyone about this. The next day, he says, he
embraced her and kissed intimate parts of her body, however she was shaking her head in a
negative way. On July 5, they became intimate to the fullest degree when they experienced
the act of sexual intercourse. The very next day, the victim says, she went to live with
a friend and shortly afterwards flew back to Korea. Upon telling her mother the story,
she filed charges and returned to the United States for the trial.
Issue
The issue being discussed here is rape. It is also being analyzed, how rape should be
defined and what constitutes a rape. What part does provocation play? The issue of
"leading on" is one often discussed. We habitually blame the alleged rapist for the
crime, but what role does the victim play. Does wearing a short skirt constitute means
for rape? The idea that "no" really means "yes" also arises. She was shaking her head but
there was a feeling that she wanted to - are the words often uttered by the alleged
rapist. If she allows to be kissed, does that imply that she wants to have sex? These are
the questions and issues that often arise in rape trials, and their interpretation can be
detrimental to either the alleged or even the victim.
Opinion
In my opinion I will attempt to answer the rhetorical questions asked above. Obviously I
am against rape and I feel that true violent rapists should be punished to the utmost
degree. I will explain what I mean with the word "true". If a woman is walking down the
street, and is attacked by a man, raped and brutally beaten - this is true rape. However,
being Russian, I feel that Americans define the word rape to be many things that it is
not. If a girl is on a date with a guy, and they go to his place, they're fooling around
and they end up sleeping together, then the next day, regretting it, she files for rape -
it's not rape. If a husband comes home and wants to sleep with his wife, and she is not
in the mood, but he sleeps with her anyway - it's not rape. I hate rape as much as the
next person, but I do not feel that it should be a woman's scapegoat for the mistakes
that she made. If you slept with him and he did not call the next day, don't go filing
for rape, it will not solve your problems. Life is not all rosy colors. When you make
mistakes you have to take responsibility for them. This applies to the alleged rapists as
well as the "alleged" victims.