Alleged Rape Victim Refuses Questioning By Alleged Rapist; Charges Dismissed

Originally posted by Aeons
reply to post by v3_exceed

 

Your amazing insight into women and children is truly telling....about you.

edit on 2010/11/13 by Aeons because: (no reason given)

It would be nice, if one of your posts were to actually contribute to a thread, rather than simply attack other posters.

..Ex

reply to post by hotbakedtater


I understand this is a difficult, cringe-worthy case. But this is the correct outcome. The blame, in my opinion, lies with the prosecution. The prosecutor should have had the foresight to anticipate any problems that would arise from the victim being cross-examined by the accused. If it looked likely that this type of thing would happen, the prosecutor should have tried to structure the case in a way to avoid the need of victim testimony. Everyone knows that its difficult for a victim to testify and the possibility of being cross-examined by the defendant should have raised alarm bells. Apparently the state didn't think that far ahead.

As bad as this might seem though, think of it this way; the man is innocent until proven guilty. The right to defend yourself at trial against a possible punishment of 20 years+ in harsh jail system and the right to cross-examine the witnesses at trial are so fundamental that even a shocking instance like this shouldn't shake our confidence in them. I suspect rape-advocates, etc, will try to take this case and run with it; pushing for some special law that wouldn't allow a man accused of rape to cross examine the victim. That's patently absurd. For one, if the case relies that heavily on the bench testimony of the victim, its probably a weak case to begin with. And second, to degrade the rights of self-representation and/or cross-interrogation to that extent would be treating the accused as guilty until proven innocent.

This is an emotional story. Just be careful not to let your emotions get the best of you.

Explanation: S&F!

Before I give my own personal point of view of this issue I took the opportunity to remind myself of alledged victims rights and and the alledged perpetrators rights and this is what I found...

Universal Declaration of Human Rights [un.org]

Article 6.
•Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7.
•All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8.
•Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9.
•No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.
•Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11.
•(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
•(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12.
•No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 14.
•(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
•(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 29.
•(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
•(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
•(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Please note that this applies everywhere and to everybody regardless!...

Article 1.
•All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.
•Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Ok so now I have my independant standard by with which I can now validly try and assess this situation with...

Personal Disclosure: I don't see any problem except that Article 10 my have been breached. If it has been breached then there is a big problem and I'll get to that there and then!

Being questioned by the person who terrorized you is not okay. It is a blatant way to further intimidate and manipulate the people you traumatized.

This is the case in any and all cases of assault, battery, murder, attempted murder....etc.

I find it reprehensible.

And an unfortunate aspect of an attempt at balancing a system which can easily slide into guilty until proven innocent.

Do I think this guy is innocent. No. I don't. The trauma he's caused is pretty apparent when a person who used to hide under the bed to get away from him would rather kill themselves than face him, and when he is probably using the system to intimidate and making the entire process as difficult as possible to prolong it, he seems pretty guilty to me.

People are not always 'innocent' when not charged. They merely haven't been held to account or evidence is lacking to prove it. Lack of proof does not MORALLY constitute innocence. Legal innocence and real innocence are far from the same thing.

reply to post by Aeons

Explanation: Yes I agree and there are already Universal Laws that cover that... its called Law of the Jungle!

The Law of the Jungle. [wiki]

"The Law of the Jungle" is usually an expression that means "every man for himself," "anything goes," "might makes right," "survival of the strongest", "survival of the fittest", "kill or be killed", "dog eat dog" and "eat or be eaten".

And anyone can use it at any time to uhm... get some kind of rough justice under this provision in the link that I supplied in my previous post to this thread!

PREAMBLE
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

The system IS balanced already!

Personal Disclosure: Have you ever heard of acting out of spite or even dare I even mention a mental condition... Factitious disorder [wiki] ???

P.S. Clearly her state of mind has now become a serious issue, enough to warrent further investigation??? [Hint, Hint! Think about the long term POSSIBLE diclosure that could come from investigating this whole issue on that front ok! ]

Edited to add Justice can wait a little bit can't it, and when its got a better clue as how best to proceed then hopefully the perpetrator will face the music fairly then.

Originally posted by Rosha
This wasnt just any old rapist this 'man' was a child molester! A paedophile...he raped her for years as a CHILD.
The paper has used a bait and switch wording to minimise the impact and outrage due his crimes..but call a spade a spade at least here!
*snip*

Yeah but in reality that didn't happen. Not untill he is convicted. You weren't there to witness the act. How would you know what happened?

reply to post by v3_exceed


I wonder how one such as you would feel if when someone asked about the brutal persistent anal rapes that made your rectum bleed while you screamed for mercy under a man 200 pounds heavier than you that you took as a child, if the person like you was really just angry because he'd rejected your childhood attempt at seducing his poor self.

reply to post by PsykoOps


Conviction doesn't determine REALITY. It only determines adjudicated guilt. Reality remains what it is. The law doesn't make reality - it blindly tries to fairly judge it.

reply to post by Aeons


Yeah and the reality is that he is innocent untill proven guilty. Reality is that noone except the people involved know what has happened. They both have to present their evidence and let the judgement come from that. Untill then, innocent.

[Edit to add] As you can see, the post I replied to stated it as a fact that this guy is a pedo even though there is absolutely no way of knowing if that's true or not.

reply to post by Aeons


Right. And an alleged victim's refusal to testify doesn't determine guilt or innocence either. Trials aren't perfect. But the ability to defend yourself and to question a witness, so the testimony isn't completely one-sided, are mechanisms aimed at getting to true-truth. Not some legalistic blind truth. If you want to know what really happened, both sides need to be able to ask questions, both sides need to be able to mount a case. These aren't formalistic procedural rules these are substantive rights designed to make sure innocent people aren't punished for crimes they didn't commit. The fact that rape is such a serious crime with such serious penalites only makes it more important to allow the accused to defend themselves.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by Aeons

 

Yeah and the reality is that he is innocent untill proven guilty. Reality is that noone except the people involved know what has happened. They both have to present their evidence and let the judgement come from that. Untill then, innocent.

Legally innocent.

His actions in the case are somewhat incriminating in themselves.

Legally innocent and he didn't do it are very different things.

So...were these charges dismissed with prejudice or without? Since these were dismissed, that leaves the possibility that charges could be brought up against him for the same crime at a later time.

Not found "not guilty."

reply to post by Aeons


Someone who excercises their rights is incriminating? As far as we and court and jury are conserned, he didn't do it untill it's proven. It's entirely possible that he did do it but we cannot know that for sure. It's also entirely possible that the charges are false and as it stands they're on a very weak ground at the moment.

Originally posted by Aeons
reply to post by v3_exceed

 

I wonder how one such as you would feel if when someone asked about the brutal persistent anal rapes that made your rectum bleed while you screamed for mercy under a man 200 pounds heavier than you that you took as a child and that if the person like you was just angry because he'd rejected your childhood attempt at seducing his poor self.

edit on 2010/11/13 by Aeons because: (no reason given)

I wonder how one such as you can live under the terrible burden of arrogance you so plainly portray.

Because I believe a person needs more than a simple accusation to be convicted, or because I don't simply wither to the feelings presented when a person is accused of a distasteful crime I'm somehow "Such as me".
How about we just forgo the whole trial process and return to the witch burnings of old, but just for the distasteful crimes?

It is people like you that kept humanity in the dark ages before the age of reason came to be. Be thankful that a judicial system is in place that considers YOUR rights to a fair an impartial process, one day it might be you facing the allegations of some person you upset. ANY person can be accused of a crime. ANY person can be arrested, what part of that precludes guilt?

Once again, you contribute nothing to the thread, only attack posters with your very limited sense of rational.

..Ex

reply to post by v3_exceed


People also require to display humanity and empathy.

Both excellent traits, which one should consider trying on.

I'm right by the way. Charges being dismissed means no double jeopardy. He can be retried.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by Aeons

 

Someone who excercises their rights is incriminating? As far as we and court and jury are conserned, he didn't do it untill it's proven. It's entirely possible that he did do it but we cannot know that for sure. It's also entirely possible that the charges are false and as it stands they're on a very weak ground at the moment.

Three other testifying witnesses is "weak ground" in your book?

Originally posted by The Sword
Wait a minute, since when does a rapist have a right to question the person he/she raped?

What country do we live in again?

Er, I'm sorry. I was under the impression everyone was innocent until proven guilty. It was during this trial that the person accused of rape would get to question the person accusing them of rape. No where was a "rapist to question the person he/she raped"....

reply to post by v3_exceed

Explanation: I believe it was this post that has attracted your and this thread with unwarrented attention and so I scrutinized it myself again to see what I could have possibly over looked and I think if you provide some evidence of...

Many children who had actually been abused have found the ability to face their accusers when years and years of abuse had been sustained.

Then that will clear up the issue regarding children, which shouldn't be too hard I'm assuming!

And I did note that you didn't generalize about women at all and just focused on this one accuser, which I commend you for!

There is way way way too much credence being given to this womans allegations and not near enough on her mental stability.

And...

From the perspective of the information so far, she's likely just fabricated the whole incident and using this perception of victimization as her way out.

I fully concur!

And so I completely don't understand how Aeons has gotten hold the perspective of ...

reply to post by v3_exceed

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your amazing insight into women and children is truly telling....about you.
edit on 2010/11/13 by Aeons because: (no reason given)

Personal Disclosure: I hope that this helps rerail this topic! Thanks in advance and keep up the great posts!

reply to post by stumason
To the accuser he IS a rapist.

reply to post by hotbakedtater


So? That doesn't mean anyhting without a fair trial, as has been discussed already.

I could accuse you tomorrow of using cucumbers in a distasteful manner on me when I was a child and make a very convincing act out of it too. Does that mean you did it? No. At the very elast you would expect an investigation and, if it came to it, a fair trial where you had a chance to defend yourself against the accusations.

Just because someone says you are something, that doesn't make it so. It is why we have trials in the first place.