The stance among universities and professional sports has always been that the number of incidents of sexual crimes committed by athletes is in line with the percentages of the rest of the population. The only reason why it may seem like there are higher instances of athletes committing violent and sexual crimes is because when they do occur the media attacks it like a raccoon on a knocked over garbage can. Athletes are famous, many of them serve as role models, like it or not Charles Barkley, so when one of these incidents occur, it is big news throughout the country. Even when incidents occur at major universities, it is national news and the media may exploit it to some extent but that is only because the media knows that people care.
These incidents have been some of the biggest news stories over the past fifteen to twenty years. Think about it. There was O.J. (killing Nicole and Ron), Mark Chmura (allegedly raping a former baby-sitter at an after prom party), Rae Carruth (shooting and later killing his girlfriend who was pregnant at the time with his baby) Kobe Bryant (allegedly sexually assaulting a 19 year old hotel employee), The Minnesota Viking “Love Boat Scandal” (17 players were charged with lewd and indecent conduct), and most recently the Duke Lacrosse scandal (several players were charged with raping a stripper they had hired for a party).
These are just the headliners - there are many more examples that were not so highly covered by the media because the athletes involved were not mainstream household names. The two most disturbing examples may be Richard Seigler, a former NFL linebacker, who has the distinction of being the first professional football player to be charged with pandering (pimping). Seigler had at least two girls working for him as prostitutes and he placed adds for them on craigslist advertising them as “all natural sexy girls.” The other not as well known incident took place on the Henderson State campus in Arkansas where four university football players and one student were charged with raping a 13-year-old girl.
These incidents happen in the general population as well. It makes sense that there would be examples of this in sports, after all they are just human beings. There have been two studies conducted to explore if there are higher incidents among athletes than non-athletes and the studies do not help thte case made by the athletes. Kathryn Hildebrand (Northern Arizona University) and Kimberly Bogle and Dewayne Johnson (Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL) conducted a study and wrote a research paper titled "Violence in Athletes Versus Non-Athletes by Gender.” The purpose of this study was to compare patterns of engagement in violence activities, and related risk behaviors, of athletes from various levels of participation (high school and college) and non-athletes.
High school athletes (male: 61.2%; female: 50.0%) and college athletes (male: 21.0%; female: 25.0%) were involved in a physical fight, more than non-athletes (male: 15.8%; female: 25.0%). Ten percent of male non-athletes carried a weapon two or three times while, 60% of male high school athletes and 26.7% of male college athletes carried a weapon two or three times; similarly, 22.2% of female non-athletes carried weapon one time compared to 66.7% and 11.1% of female high school and college athletes respectively (results for females were at a significant level). Athletes, both males (HS: 62.7%; college: 27.1%) and females (HS: 61.3%; college: 9.7%), had sex under the influence of drugs/alcohol significantly more than non-athletes (males: 15.7%; females: 28.0%). These results demonstrate the relationship between athletics and violence, which has been illustrated in the literature and society. Based on these results further research is needed to examine and understand the relationship between participation in violent acts and athletic status.
The other study, titled "The Benedict/Crosset Study," gives some interesting statistics as well. The three-year study shows that while male student-athletes comprise 3.3% of the population, they represent 19% of sexual assault perpetrators and 35% of domestic violence perpetrators. One in three college sexual assaults are committed by athletes. In the three years before 1998, an average of 1000 charges were brought against athletes each year. In 1995, while only 8.5% of the general population was charged with assault, 36.8% of athletes were charged with assault. The general population has a conviction rate of 80%. The conviction rate of an athlete is 38%. (Bendict/Crosset Study).
Why are there higher instances of violence and sexual abuse among athletes? Could it be that athletes are big men on campus and professional athletes are famous with lots of money which attract their fair share of admirers? Athletes may have more of an opportunity to have sexual encounters with a greater number of partners. Are these athletes not used to not getting what they want and hearing no? Maybe it is that there is a lack of fear from consequences and repercussions because so many athletes are used to special treatment and they don’t think they can get in trouble. There are many possible reasons and it’s doubtful that the ones named are even the reasons. More studies need to be done on this issue. We know very little about this issue and it needs to be addressed. Once we delve deeper into the reasons sex crimes and violence occur with such frequency among athletes maybe there will not be as many headlines.
For more information on this topic I found the National Coalition Against Violent Athletes to be helpful NCAVA.org
Did anyone doubt the higher incidence of violence among athletes? Sure, they get more media attention than the average person. They are people with name recognition and apparently poor impulse control.
Posted by: JT | March 17, 2009 at 11:11 AM
I know that it is popular and hip to say that OJ really killed Nicole and Ron but the fact of the matter is that in his criminal trial he was found not guilty. Regardless of the one's agreement with that verdict, it's disappointing to see a legal blog devoted to criminal matters (even when the post is by a student) get that well-reported fact wrong. It's further disappointing when someone like Kobe is described as "allegedly" raping when "District Judge Terry Ruckriegle threw out the case with prejudice, meaning that the charges cannot be refiled at a later date." This is basic research that took me all of three seconds to double check on the net via Google.
I might not expect such nuances to be noted by a member of the general public, but future lawyers need to understand clearly the difference between "guilty" and "not guilty" and between allegations which have legal status and those that don't. It seriously undermines the credibility of the poster and his/her argument when such basic facts are dead wrong.
Posted by: Daniel | March 17, 2009 at 11:41 AM
Hi Daniel,
I don't think there are any inaccuracies in the student post. It merely asserts that OJ killed Nicole and Ron - it does not say he committed homicide (which would have been legally incorrect). Given that OJ lost the civil wrongful-death suit for both deaths, I think it is fair to say he killed her. It is true that the civil burden of proof is less, but that has no implication on the veracity of the student's statement.
As for the Kobe situation, I also think "allegedly" is accurate. The only reason that the case did not go forward was that Kobe reached a settlement with the victim. Without the victim's testimony, the case could not proceed and dismissal with prejudice was appropriate. The settlement does not mean that Kobe was not alleged to have committed the crime.
Best,
Corey
Posted by: Corey Rayburn Yung | March 17, 2009 at 12:03 PM
"I don't think there are any inaccuracies in the student post. It merely asserts that OJ killed Nicole and Ron - it does not say he committed homicide (which would have been legally incorrect). Given that OJ lost the civil wrongful-death suit for both deaths, I think it is fair to say he killed her. It is true that the civil burden of proof is less, but that has no implication on the veracity of the student's statement."
actualy your wrong. this statement proves to all of us what a useless group is coming out of law schools now. Since any normal person knows that so-called civil trial was both a JOKE and the final nail in the grave that is the american justice system. Last time i looked the U.S Constitution has no def between criminal and civil law. Sorry the fact that anyone could possibly think it's legal to have a trial and find someone NOT GUILTY in a crimial trial and then drag them across the hall and find them guilty in a so-called civil trial proves how stupid and ignorant they are on THE US CONSTITUTION.
Posted by: rodney | March 18, 2009 at 03:13 AM
"It is true that the civil burden of proof is less, but that has no implication on the veracity of the student's statement."
Then why are their different burdens of proof at all in the legal system. As I see it, it precisely because different burdens of proof have implications for veracity. The difference between "Reasonable doubt" and "preponderance of evidence" strikes at the heart of the confidence one has in the veracity of the guilty or not guilty verdict. If this were not so, then having such different standards would be entirely pointless and a useless fiction.
Posted by: Daniel | March 18, 2009 at 11:12 AM
What I find fascinating about the Student Post is the "Violence in Athletes Versus Non-Athletes by Gender" study. What is surprising is what might be termed the "risk index" of the females, for example the surprisingly high propensity to engage in physical fights. Some criminologists and psychologists who develop risk assessment found that a risk taking personalty is a strong indicator of criminal propensity. Could it also be an indicator of victimization?
Posted by: Anon | March 18, 2009 at 11:21 AM
Daniel,
Imagine that there was no criminal trial at all and, instead, only a civil verdict for wrongful death against OJ. Would you think it would be fair to say based upon that verdict that OJ killed Ron and Nicole? If so, I think the inclusion of the criminal verdict in the analysis changes nothing. After all, you can accept both verdicts and conclude that there was a preponderance of evidence that OJ killed those two, but it could not be shown beyond a reasonable doubt. That still means over half the evidence was indicative of guilt. Because of that, I see no trouble with the assertion by the student that OJ killed Ron and Nicole. I have to admit I'm surprised by the defense of OJ after his absolutely ridiculous failed book, "If I Did It."
By the way, students do not post directly to the blog. I edit their posts to some degree before they appear. So, in this case, any error is as much my responsibility as it is the student's.
Best,
Corey
Posted by: Corey Rayburn Yung | March 18, 2009 at 12:00 PM
"Daniel,
Imagine that there was no criminal trial at all and, instead, only a civil verdict for wrongful death against OJ. Would you think it would be fair to say based upon that verdict that OJ killed Ron and Nicole? If so, I think the inclusion of the criminal verdict in the analysis changes nothing. After all, you can accept both verdicts and conclude that there was a preponderance of evidence that OJ killed those two, but it could not be shown beyond a reasonable doubt. That still means over half the evidence was indicative of guilt. Because of that, I see no trouble with the assertion by the student that OJ killed Ron and Nicole."
ahh but that's the problem. there NEVER should have been a civil trial let alone a civil verdict. the u.s constitution does't rercognize anything called civil law. what it does say is you cant' try someone twice for the same crime. so if you are in fact going to break it's rules have have both at the very least have guts enough to PICK ONE and live with the verdict.
Posted by: rodney | March 18, 2009 at 06:58 PM