Douchebag Decree: Ken Buck
Oh, Ken Buck. You make my job so easy, what with your refusing to prosecute a rapist because you thought the victim had had an abortion. Maybe you've heard of the Douchebag Decree, and you got so excited that you TRIED to be as outrageously bigoted as possible so that we would give you a shout-out? Was that it? Or are you...oh no... you are... just a HUGE DOUCHEBAG ALL ON YOUR VERY OWN.
Welcome to this week's Douchebag Decree, friends. We're highlighting today the 51-year-old Republican Senate nominee for Colorado, who, while he was District Attorney five years ago, did indeed refuse to prosecute a rapist because he thought the victim might be experiencing "buyer's remorse" after an abortion he thought she'd had after having sex with her attacker. Yes, you read that right. Buyer's remorse. Assuming he hadn't even brought getting-raped-is-like-buying-expensive-pants analogies into the conversation, he was STILL wrong about the facts of the case. The victim did not have an abortion. What she did do, however, was confront Buck about his declination to take on her case, and she taped their conversation (secretly, but legally). For a PDF of the meeting, push all breakables away from you and read here.
Now is a fine time to mention that instead of, you know, making the horrendous claim that a rape victim would accuse her attacker as broken-hearted revenge, Buck could have been a little more forthcoming about his incredible anti-choice record and how that might factor into his judgment of this case. But the next issue is, even before Buck wrongly assumed the victim had an abortion, he grossly misinterpreted the assault itself.
An excerpt from the transcript (trigger warning: victim blaming, sexual assault):
KB: ...When you look at what happened earlier in the night, all the
circumstances, based on his statements and some of your statements, indicate
that you invited him to come to your apartment... that you told him how to get
in .... It would appear to me and it appears to others that you invited him over to
have sex with him. Whether that you, at that time, were conscious enough to say
yes or no...
Victim: So you're telling me that previous sexual relations is enough to provide
consent, and you're telling me that because of me calling him and because of
previous sexual relations and because I invited him up and told him how to get
in, that I invited him up for sex...
KB: I'm telling you that's what the circumstances suggest, to people,
including myself, who have looked at it. Although, you never said the word yes,
but the appearance is of consent.
Now, I personally have just a few questions before we move forward. A of all, is that last sentence grammatically correct to anyone, anywhere? And B of all, does Ken believe that rape EVEN EXISTS? "Yes" was not said. "No" was definitely said. Sex was forced by one person on another. But Buck thinks that's not a punishable act.
Oh, Ken. You DO have bullshit all over your shoes.
Here is another gem of a factoid in this situation: the rapist admitted his conduct could be prosecuted as rape.
So let's sum up. The rapist admits an assault took place. The victim and assailant AGREE that no consent was given. At no point did the woman get an abortion--not that that should even BEGIN to factor in the District Attorney's thinking about a rape case. And still, our Douchebag of the week refused to prosecute, used false information to judge the victim, and claimed there was no rape to begin with.
I'm just going to say this right now: I have no idea what our decree next week will look like. Can it possibly get get any douchier than this?
Don't answer that.
Comments6 comments have been made. Post a comment.
Have an idea for the blog? Click here to contact us!
Julie Hennrikus (not verified)
Elenute (not verified)
Anonymous (not verified)
RoseD (not verified)