Rape Victim Faces Jail

[Lady's Human]

Just read a Fox news story, the judge has withdrawn the demand evidently after much pressure from the state AG.

[KYS]

Lady's Human:the judge has withdrawn the demand evidently after much pressure from the state AG. >>>>>>>>

Thank Goodness! I was hoping the negative publicity of public outcry would cause
the judge to change his mind. I am appalled that he needed outrage from
the public in the first place. I would not want that judge on
my case.

[JenBKR]

Just read a Fox news story, the judge has withdrawn the demand evidently after much pressure from the state AG.

Oh I am so glad - what a relief!

[moosmom]

Good!! I'm glad they ruled NOT to make her watch it. That stupid judge is nothing but a dirty old man in a robe on a bench, who was looking for a free "peep show". UGH!!!

I also think they were trying to make her drop her case. Glad she stood her ground.

The judicial system needs to stop making the VICTIMS the bad guys in rape cases and concentrate on what's important...putting disgusting criminals who commit the crimes behind bars!!

[Cataholic]

A couple of things. Rape is not about sex, but, about power/conquest. So, when someone says the person deserved, or was asking to be raped, they aren't understanding the psychology of the crime. If rape was about sex, and people 'asking' to be raped by their apparel (or lack thereof), why are completely clothed people raped?

However, I imagine we are missing a significant part of the story as it relates to the Judge's order. If the prosecutor thought introduction of the video tape was necessary for a conviction, I can't think of any other way to get it into evidence unless the victim 'authenticated' it, "yes, that is me on the tape". (The defendant can't be ordered to testify against himself..so, he won't be authenticating it).

In rape/assualt cases, it often comes down to one person's word against another's word, and since the prosecution must prevail beyond reasonable doubt (something we often say is in the 95% range), and sometimes victim's testimony can't stand on its own, I can see how the viewing of the tape could be critical, and where the Judge might be coming from.

I guess if it were me, and I wanted to be sure of a conviciton, I would view the tape.

[lizbud]

However, I imagine we are missing a significant part of the story as it relates to the Judge's order. If the prosecutor thought introduction of the video tape was necessary for a conviction, I can't think of any other way to get it into evidence unless the victim 'authenticated' it, "yes, that is me on the tape". (The defendant can't be ordered to testify against himself..so, he won't be authenticating it).

In rape/assualt cases, it often comes down to one person's word against another's word, and since the prosecution must prevail beyond reasonable doubt (something we often say is in the 95% range), and sometimes victim's testimony can't stand on its own, I can see how the viewing of the tape could be critical, and where the Judge might be coming from.

I guess if it were me, and I wanted to be sure of a conviciton, I would view the tape.

No it was an effort on the Defense side to compel the victim to watch the
tape as he asked questions. The judge sided with the defense.The story
was covered by the Chicago Tribune.

[AbbyMom]

No one was disputing that it was her in the tape. She had already testified that she had no recollection of the rape and the taping because she was unconscious. Prior testimony had already focused on how drunk she was prior to the incident.

No one said that the jury couldn't see the evidence. They have now viewed it.

The reasoning from the defense to make the complaining witness view it in court and answer questions was that the defendent had the right to confront his accuser.

"If the government is using this tape, then the defense has every right to ask the complaining witness to view it and to talk about it."

In other words, he wanted to point out specific actions in the tape and say "doesn't that look like you were enjoying it?" What else would he ask her? That was no point in saying "can you confirm that's you?"

However, the defense can still review the tape with jurors and say "doesn't that look like she was enjoying it?" without making her view it too. If she claims to be unconscious and she's not, they should be able to tell. His rights to protect himself against false claims is preserved.

BTW, a second defendent has already pled guilty and a third has fled the country. I think the defense for this defendent was desperate.

BTW, The Rights of Crime Victims and Witnesses act says the privacy and dignity of crime victims should be protected throughout the trial.

[Cataholic]

Lizbud,
Thanks for the clarification. I didn't follow the story at all, I don't read/watch much news these days.

From the defense perspective, I can see how pointing out she was enjoying it, participating in it, etc., would weaken the prosecution's case. If she was comatose, she was comatose. If she was a willing participant, she was a willing participant.

Like someone else said, it certainly pinpoints the dangers of binge drinking. It totally clouds your judgment.

In any event, lest someone jump to some conclusion about me- I am in total support of victim's rights, and do think people should be punished for their crimes. I just wanted to highlight WHY the Judge might have ruled how he did, not just have some knee jerk reaction to his order.