RIGHTS WATCH : Condom Defense

The criminal justice system can try one’s patience--and strain one’s credulity.

But keep the faith.

Last September a Texas grand jury declined to indict a 28-year-old man who broke into an apartment and raped a woman at knifepoint. The reason for no indictment: The victim begged the rapist to use a condom, which she provided, to reduce her risk of being exposed to AIDS or other diseases.

The panel felt that the victim, through the mere act of supplying a condom, was implying consent to having sex with an armed intruder.

If you haven’t been keeping up with this story, you’re now howling with disbelief. With outrage. You should be.

Right, once again, the victim was “asking for it.” It’s the victim’s fault that the guy broke into her apartment.

Right, and women are aroused by the flash of a knife! Very appealing.

Right, and watch those skirt lengths, ladies--they could imply consent to rape, too.

Fortunately, we live in an open society. Unlike in a nation of secret trials and government censorship, protests can have a positive effect.

In this case, the first grand jury decision led to a nationwide outcry. So prosecutors convened a second grand jury. In October it issued an indictment. And on Thursday a Travis County jury of eight women and four men set the scale of justice right with a guilty verdict--forever (we hope forever) discrediting the condom defense.

Once again, the U.S. criminal justice system came through. But sometimes justice can require patience. A lot of patience.