Alleged Rape Victim Refuses Questioning By Alleged Rapist; Charges Dismissed

The most humane solution is having the defendant write down a list of questions he wants a lawyer to ask on his behalf.

In circumstances such as these, it would be appropriate and more humane to require a lawyer and a translator to prevent the defendant from being re-victimized by the alleged rapist. What a horrible way to exert power and control over your victim and to do it legally . . . in front of witnesses in the court room AND a judge!

Just because the man is an EX-boyfriend does not automatically mean this is vengence on the woman's part. He may very well be and EX-boyfriend because of what he was doing to this woman and her daughters.

I believe in fair laws and justice, but too many of our laws protect the rights of the defendants BEYOND the rights of the victims so much that there is an IMBALANCE of justice and criminals are getting away with murder, etc.

Why am I not surprised that the same feminists who said that men are responsible for female-on-male domestic abuse and rape because they do not report it are here defending someone without a voice.

Oh, wait she has a vagina... I guess that's the difference.

Peace out, sexists.

P.S. It's usually very hard to look someone in the eye when you're committing purgery that is sealing their fate. Just throwing some variables out there that the brainwashees are incapable of considering

reply to post by v3_exceed

Originally posted by v3_exceed
It is entirely plausible that this woman was not raped. She may have been spurned by the guy, or she may have felt the need to discredit him in public and chose this as a venue to go after him. This would not be the first time a false accusation of rape had been levied in the history of mankind.

Sometimes in the western world we hear a woman cry rape, when in fact no rape occurred. Sometimes a woman is caught cheating on her husband, and cries rape to absolve herself of the responsibility.

Sometimes in the "western world" we know how to read an ENTIRE article, that clearly states she is alleging CHILDHOOD abuse.

TBQH, it sounds like you enjoy finding excuses for those alleged of rape.. While pretending to be some kind of "neutral" observer.

Everyone who starred your post should ashamed of themselves for showing support for someone who has done as such.

Originally posted by Byteman
reply to post by v3_exceed

 

Originally posted by v3_exceed
It is entirely plausible that this woman was not raped. She may have been spurned by the guy, or she may have felt the need to discredit him in public and chose this as a venue to go after him. This would not be the first time a false accusation of rape had been levied in the history of mankind.

Sometimes in the western world we hear a woman cry rape, when in fact no rape occurred. Sometimes a woman is caught cheating on her husband, and cries rape to absolve herself of the responsibility.

Sometimes in the "western world" we know how to read an ENTIRE article, that clearly states she is alleging CHILDHOOD abuse.

TBQH, it sounds like you enjoy finding excuses for those alleged of rape.. While pretending to be some kind of "neutral" observer.

Everyone who starred your post should ashamed of themselves for showing support for someone who has done as such.

He said it was possible that she is lying. This is called presumption of innocence. I assume feminists have washed that entirely from your mind by this point when it comes to female rape, though. Alleged rapists have just as many rights as alleged rape victims, if you don't like it, feel free to move to Peru.

Nobody is protecting a rapist. Technically there is no rapist to protect.

Have fun with your witch hunt.

Then again, a defendant has the right to question his/her accuser, that is something I believe in STRONGLY.

I'm a little confused on this. I'm not sure its a right to "question" an accuser. The 6th amendment gives the right to "confront" an accuser. Now, that all depends on the legal definition of "confront". Anyone have a clarification on this?

reply to post by Brood


You missed my point in your hurry to call me brainwashed. I find your link between feminism and pointing out the obvious interesting. You must be one of those people who think that everyone else is a sheep like you. Following whoever has the crook, right?

Some of us know how to come to our own conclusions without the input or approval of a societal ego-mass. I could go on and on about how I've never studied any feminist material, but I'm sure it would fall on deaf ears or a mind incapable of understanding without someone else telling it what to think.

I gave the alleged rapist their due, by indeed saying it is alleged. Something else you missed in your hurry to accuse me of witch-hunting.

v3_exceed was excusing the alleged rapist by stating that the alleged victim was acting like a spurned lover, in complete contradiction to the actual article which states that she is alleging childhood abuses. v3_exceed is saying she is probably a liar who was "dumped" by a boyfriend, and stating that she should be tried for making false accusations. Proving that he didn't read the source material, and just likes to make excuses for alleged rapists, then attack the alleged victim.

My post isn't about whether or not she is lying or not, it's about addressing another posters obvious failure to read the article, that posters flawed conclusion, and my rebuttal to that flawed conclusion. This is the largest point that you missed. Maybe next time you will learn to thoroughly read what people post, instead of using your time to think of ways to call people brainwashed.

If you want to talk about proof though....
I don't know where you are from, or what you know about the American justice system. But in order to get a prosecutor to take someone to trial on your behalf, you have to have compelling evidence. Plain and simple. No prosecutor wants to take a losing case, and will do what they can to ferret out the weak cases with the help of an entire office full of lawyers and aides to consult.

I am 100% confident in my determination that neither you or v3_exceed possess equal skill or resources. You've both certainly shown that you do not have a lawyers ability to study the issue at hand and debate that issue.

Charges should be dismissed, you can't be the only witness basically and refuse to testify. This is nothing more than social engineering.

Emotional victim's right advocates will stomp their foots and complain that the judicial system favors rapists.

I say it favors the truth and basic rights. Like others have said, the right to face your accuser.

I hate to be the one to say it, but people face atrocities worse than rape on a daily basis, but they have the fortitude to seek justice. Maybe I'm not hip on the liberal psudo-psychological rape science these days. But I don't think rape takes your motivation for justice away, nor does it turn you into this frail emotional wreck. Does it amplify already existing psychological issues? Probably...

And yes, men are falsely accused of rape all the time. I have no sympathy for this woman, she obviously doesn't want justice.

Originally posted by mryanbrown
I hate to be the one to say it, but people face atrocities worse than rape on a daily basis, but they have the fortitude to seek justice. Maybe I'm not hip on the liberal psudo-psychological rape science these days. But I don't think rape takes your motivation for justice away, nor does it turn you into this frail emotional wreck. Does it amplify already existing psychological issues? Probably...

And yes, men are falsely accused of rape all the time. I have no sympathy for this woman, she obviously doesn't want justice.

You don't think childhood rape could make someone emotionally disturbed?
Really?
Just some rape, nothing to worry about, have a nice day?

So, she was already a disturbed child, and the rape only made it worse. The rape didn't cause the emotion problems. Oh, and somehow let's claim that only liberals think rape harms, because stout conservatives think rape is no big deal.

Bringing politics into this, and trying to imply that the belief that rape harms is a liberal belief is pretty pathetic, truth be told.

I'm sure if it was a member of your family, you'd be the first to think they were getting harmed by the rapist.

reply to post by Brood


Why are you going on about feminists? Have you gotten your threads mixed up? This is not about feminists.

reply to post by Byteman


I never said rape didn't cause emotional issues. I'm just not exaggerating the extent of them.

This is literally how I see this story played out, the way I always see it played out.

"I was raped, but only I want to know I was raped. No one else can know about it, but I want justice. Yet I'm unwilling to seek justice out. I want it handed to me based solely on my word."

You were raped, does it suck? Of course. But it doesn't give you a free pass to ruin someones life without testimony or evidence.

If you want to hold someone accountable, you publicly accuse them. It should be known the circumstances of the crime are going to come out. There is no avoiding that. There is no avoiding the fact you will be in the same room as the person you are accusing.

So if you want justice, "man up" and fight for it. Stop electing to be the victim. You'll come out stronger in the end, and take back your independence. Or you can continue to play the victim card and let it control your life.

Seems black and white to me. Either get over it and seek justice, or don't even bother to accuse someone. You can't have it both ways.

EDIT: Do you think there's a difference between a rape victim and someone chosen for 'enhanced search' by the TSA? I don't.

reply to post by hotbakedtater


Personally I think it is proof that the system works. If you are going to accuse someone, the burden of proof falls onto you for backing it up. If you aren't going to do that, then oh well. I am not tryin to sound callous about what occured to this lady, but its not a good enough reason to not take the stand.

Everyone has an absolutel right to defend themselves in court. Generally co counsel is assigned from the Public Defender pool, but only to the extent of following the case and acting in an advisory capacity only. This guy has a right to call this lady as a witness and question her.

As horrible as this is, its proof people are innocent until proven guilty, and have aright to face their accusers.

reply to post by MGriff


Isn't the questioning of your accuser usually done through a lawyer? If the substitution is available to CEOs who've presided over companies that commit atrocities against several individuals then I think there should be a provision for rape victims in cases such as these. There probably is a precedent for it already. There is nothing unconstitutional about protecting a victim from the accused. If you've ever been in a court of law you would, I'm sure you would see that proxies are used all of the time and to not use one in this case is despicable.

STH

pretty cut and dry...you have the right to face your accusers.

I know a girl whom lied about being raped to get her ex boyfriend locked up...and yep, he got locked up...
the guy was not a gem mind you, but he wasn't a rapist...now he is only because she lied.

just saying, do not look at the charge and immediately snap judge anything...perhaps she didn't want to face his questioning because she was lying..we don't know..all we know is that the rights of a person should always be preserved. It was her right not to be questioned, and it is therefore his right to walk away. the prosecution should have spent more time prepping her and building her strength if this was an unfortunate truth that she was raped.

reply to post by stopthathurts


Ah but you're confusing just what a corporation is. A corporation is not a person, people are not directly liable in most circumstances. Therefor it doesn't matter which board member you question, so long as you receive a response from an agent of the corporation, then the corporation has testified. It needn't be a particular member of the corporation. Only if you are charging an individual member of the board, not the board (corporation) it's self.

reply to post by mryanbrown


So you've been raped? You can accurately predict the way one should feel after being raped?
O.K. so you are either omniscient or a rape victim. Which is it?

Oh, wait....she should "man up". Now I get it.



( Not trying to be nasty. Just fired up.)

reply to post by mryanbrown


Corporations are treated as individuals for collective crimes I believe.
I don't know the real facts with this one. You may have a point, but I believe the right is to confront your accuser. I do know that proxies are used in many,many instances within a court room and in this case it just seems common sense.

STH

reply to post by stopthathurts


There's no need to attempt to try to infer I don't care about rape victims. If it somehow makes you feel better about disagreeing with me, should that be my position then I can say so just to make your points seem more valid.

I'm not even trying to quantify how I feel someone either does or should feel.

I'm stating there's really only two possible routes once you're a victim.

1. Remain a victim in silence.
2. Seek justice.

And if you're going to seek justice, you must be prepared to confront the crime and defendant. If you aren't then don't even bother.

I'm more terrified to think what type of legal reform victim's rights advocates will push for than a rapist not being convicted. It sounds callous and maybe it is, maybe I just have a greater perspective.

I can imagine it now. "Victim's right advocates push to prevent defendants from cross examining their accusers in rape cases."

5 years later....

"Defendants are prevented from cross examining their accusers."

This is the reality of the shifting baseline of legality we live in under, emotions play a role as a stepping stone to swaying public mentality into a new frontier of strung together legal concepts with no firm historical or legal basis.

Originally posted by Byteman
reply to post by v3_exceed

 

Originally posted by v3_exceed
It is entirely plausible that this woman was not raped. She may have been spurned by the guy, or she may have felt the need to discredit him in public and chose this as a venue to go after him. This would not be the first time a false accusation of rape had been levied in the history of mankind.

Sometimes in the western world we hear a woman cry rape, when in fact no rape occurred. Sometimes a woman is caught cheating on her husband, and cries rape to absolve herself of the responsibility.

Originally posted by Byteman
Sometimes in the "western world" we know how to read an ENTIRE article, that clearly states she is alleging CHILDHOOD abuse.

TBQH, it sounds like you enjoy finding excuses for those alleged of rape.. While pretending to be some kind of "neutral" observer.

Everyone who starred your post should ashamed of themselves for showing support for someone who has done as such.

Some days this is like talking to babies.... So how about you simply try to READ what I wrote in an intelligent manner. I also posted LINKS where exactly what I was referring to which had already happened in other cases.

Your post adds nothing but sentimental drivel to an already inflamed topic. If you can't discuss this with a rational mind, you should be on a different board. Sometimes...people LIE. Sometimes they falsely accuse people for their own reasons. Childhood abuse accusations couldn't possibly come from a vindictive adult right? Nobody is ever manipulative, especially women who threaten killing themselves..

So far the bleeding hearts would remove this guys right to a fair trial, they would "Get what he deserves" before he's even convicted, and charges dropped means he's probably still guilty just "wiggling out of it". Some of these posters should hope they are NEVER faced with an accusation of a distasteful act, lest they face the same sense of justice they are so ready to hand out.

Gawd, the people who starred YOUR posts should stop drinking the cool-aid.

..Ex

reply to post by hotbakedtater


Well, they will appoint you one, they have to. It sounds like it was his choice to defend himself, as is his right.

She shouldn't have refused, I understand why she did but just the fact that the idea of being cross examined by him means she is still being controlled and hasn't taken her life back. If she would have got up on the stand and told her truth (and it was in fact the truth) he would have likely gone to jail. In not doing so she actually permitted him to act in the way she was afraid of and gave up the chance to take control of the situation.

Edit: also mryanbrown is right, he rambled on after saying the only thing he needed to say, but the case pretty much had to be dismissed if the only witness wouldn't testify, I wonder if she was aware that would happen.

reply to post by mryanbrown


Oh, so now rape only causes "some" emotional trauma. Okay, glad you cleared that up.

Still claiming it's "liberal psudo-psychological rape science"?
You know, cause using your hate of Liberals to insult them and alleged rape victims is the right thing to do. We should all take your lesson to heart, tying anything that shows rape can harm to Liberalism. How appropriate.

Your admitted pre-conceived notions about "how you always see rapes play out", pretty much proves that you have a built-in bias against people who claim rape. I can only wonder why you are so hateful to people who believe they were raped.

Again, you simply have no idea what "proof" was presented in any way. Prosecutors wouldn't have taken the case unless they thought they could win. Something credible would have to have been presented to them at some point. No amount of claiming that this is an empty accusation will change that reality.

She did publicly accuse the person, it's called a trial. I don't know why you are going on like she didn't publicly accuse the alleged child-rapist.

Telling someone who thinks they were raped to "man up"?
It's pretty obvious you're reflecting your own internal issues.

She did bother to seek Justice, again it's called a trial it did happen. I don't understand why you can't comprehend that.

People going through "enhanced search" know it will happen and are freely consenting to it. You can say no at any time and turn around and leave.

The alleged rape-victim did not consent, and especially this victim who is claiming it happened during childhood.
Children cannot give informed consent for sex.

If you think that giving consent for a search, and rape (especially child-rape) are the same thing.

You need professional help.