Thursday, April 22, 1999

THE POST

Athens, Ohio * An Independent Daily Newspaper * Ohio University
Night march unites ideals

THE POST

This quarter, women at Ohio University will Take Back the Night as they have every year for the last two decades. And once again, there is debate as to whether men can take it back with the women.

Take Back the Night originally was organized as an anti-pornography movement in the 1970s but it since has expanded to include all women's safety issues.

In some years, men have been allowed to walk throughout the entire march, and in others, men could begin walking with the women halfway through the march.

This night has become a symbol of women's empowerment and should continue to represent that sentiment. Therefore men should be able to walk with the women in the Take Back the Night march, but only halfway.

The women involved in Take Back the Night should understand and appreciate the support men are offering to the cause, but men should respect the women's right to walk alone. Women can gain a sense of strength and closure by being surrounded by members of the same sex. Imagine the uneasiness of the situation if a male attacker were walking next to his female victim.

While men might feel slighted because of their potentially limited role in the march, they must remember this night is pro-women, not anti-men. The focus should stay on women to make a legitimate statement about not tolerating sexual abuses.

Decisions about men's participation in the march should be made annually. Times change and so do contemporary views on feminism and men's participation in the movement.

Take Back the Night is a women's empowerment movement, but sexual abuses are a societal problem - one that affects men and women alike.



Participation in the courts

THE POST

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed this week to decide whether people convicted of crimes have the right to represent themselves on appeal.

Salvador Martinez, a California inmate convicted of embezzlement, persuaded the Supreme Court to hear the case.

A 1975 Supreme Court ruling in Faretta vs. California gave suspects the right to waive an attorney and represent themselves in a criminal case. A criminal case is logistically different than an appeals case but not different enough to cause a discrepancy in rights.

The Supreme Court should rule in favor of Martinez and allow convicted criminals to represent themselves on appeal. Defendants can represent themselves at all levels of the judicial system and the appeals process should be no different.

One reason for the 1975 ruling by the Supreme Court is that choosing to not use an attorney and defend oneself is an inherent part of the Sixth Amendment right to present a legal defense in a criminal case. This should apply to appeals cases because suspects have the right to choose an attorney; they are not forced to have one.

Appeals cases are a way for criminals to find technicalities that will grant them their freedom. It should be left up to them to decide if they want to risk their freedom by not using an attorney. After all, it's their life that will be spent behind bars if they lose.

Allowing criminals to represent themselves is an extension of Constitutional rights and democracy. Not allowing self-representation lessens citizens' involvement in court and government proceedings.

Those who choose to represent themselves are taking a chance on their own lives. Why should anyone else be able to take that chance for them?


[Front Page] [Top Story] [Today's Edition] [The Post Archives] [About The Post] [Post Phone Numbers] [Staff Resumes] [Advertising Information] [Contact Us] [Useful Links] [Entertainment]