Everson guilty, but not of much

Jurors returned their verdict just before noon: Cedric Everson assaulted a fellow student athlete in the Hillcrest dorm in October 2007, they decided. The punishment he deserves? A slap on the wrist.

The judge knocked down a charge of second-degree sexual abuse to a lesser felony after hearing Everson's former roommate and former co-defendent Abe Satterfield's amazing feat of contorted non-testimony. The jury took it further, removing the sexual element of the crime altogether, and finding Everson guilty of misdemeanor assault -- like the kind you're charged with when you shove somebody in a bar. The kind that carries a maximum sentence of 30 days in jail -- compared to the years Everson faced for the sex abuse charge.

"I guess we can officially call her the 'victim' now," one news blogger just wrote. He meant that the site could drop "alleged", an adjective newspapers commonly add to the V-word when covering sexual assault charges (but not for any other type of crime). But it seems true in the broader sense here, too.

After last Saturday's column about Satterfield's testimony, several of you shared your thoughts with me about the case -- specifically about the fact that the woman had been drinking.

"I am NOT one of those folks who believes that it is the woman's fault if she dresses sexy, and she needs to be wrapped in a burqa to keep the men's minds at ease, lest we are out of control," one reader wrote. "However, there is some measure of personal responsibility required."

That's absolutely true. Now practice saying it about the victim of fraud, or arson, or, yeah, simple assault.

I don't think it's an accident. A generation ago, there were three ways to defend yourself against a charge of rape: It didn't happen. It wasn't me. She (it's nearly always she) wanted it. Strike the first two these days, now that DNA evidence can narrow the suspect down to one person in a billion, and you're left with the third.

I'll have more thoughts on this later.