Please Describe To the Jury What Happened..."Sounds Like..."

[William33 110]

I was on the other side of that when I first came over. Sat in the gallery to watch a DA trying to indict a friend's teenage kid on a charge of 1st degree rape - a charge that was (very) greatly trumped up from what he had actually done.

Agreed, there are significant variances and shortcomings in many cases. Often times, aggressive DA's fail to prove the case, or worse, they trump up charges against the innocent, to garner votes. Look at the Duke U case for example. In this clowns mind, all convictions are a "feather in the cap". Reality caught up with this #######. Let’s hope that there Is a lesson learned here!

In this particular instance, guilt was clear to us, yet under the law, we were unable to take action. Unfortunately, it required additional criminal action, with "slam dunk" evidence to put this scumbag away.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I couldn't imagine that a 19 y/o with no prior criminal history whose only 'offence' was that he briefly stalked/harassed (although that's too strong a word for it) his 17 y/o ex - was facing charges that carried a sentence of at least 15 years.

It was definitely exaggerated on the part of the DA - in fact, the case should never have made it to court in the first place.

[Caladan 19]

I also think that if castration is a penalty for rape, juries will be less likely to convict rapists. My roommate used to tell a story -- she studied 16th century England -- about when a jurisdiction made stealing anything worth more than a pound a hanging offense. It was interesting to look at the court records, she said, because what you saw was not a drop in crime, nor a lot of hanged thieves, but a lot of convictions for exactly one shilling less.

Nobody wanted to execute a man for a theft of such a relatively small amount. And I'm not sure a jury would want to castrate someone like the guy in the article, especially if it wasn't a very violent rape. So I think we'd end up with more rapists and predators, paradoxically, going free.

[dalegg 143]

dalegg, I don't think you read me correctly. Or perhaps it wasn't clear. We wouldn't bar a victim of theft from saying 'the man stole' or a witness to a murder saying 'I saw him murder the guy right in front of me!' Why the hell would we prevent the rape victim from saying he forced himself on her?

If juries don't automatically convict someone because the victim said "He took my wallet" instead of "I gave him an involuntary personal loan", they can figure out that when someone testifies, that's not the same as as proof. Are they going to take 'sexual assault' out of the charges, so they aren't prejudiced by that? The victim testifying should not constitute unreasonable prejudice.

Christ. We can only conclude Nebraska doesn't care about women getting raped.

--

Only problem with saying that DNA evidence = castration is that the new defense is that it was consensual, even if the guy drugged the woman.

Wait- I think you could bar a person from saying "I saw him murder the guy right in front of me". Murder is a crime. The actual act would be something like-

"I saw him stab him", or "I saw him shoot him". It would depend on the other circumstances described by the witness as to whether or not it was a murder or just manslaughter.

Same thing for a theft witness. They can't really say they saw someone "steal" something, they can say they saw that person take it and put it in their pocket, but until the store clerk testifies that he didn't loan the defendant the merchandise or permit them to take it, you cannot determine that the act was a theft.

And I would not prohibit someone from saying "he forced himself on her" if that's what he did. This would come down the line of questioning-

"He approached her"

"She pushed him and hit him"

"He forced himself on her"

etc, etc.

Thus describing rape without actually saying rape. I think you could do it. There is no such witness in this case though, otherwise it would be pointless for the prosecuter to ban the word rape. Most rape cases have no witnesses so they rely only on the testimony of the victim, and the defense attorney doesn't want the word "rape" to be used when many of her acts could be consistent with consentual sex.

"It is undisputed that they shared some drinks, and witnesses saw them leaving together. Bowen claims not to have left willingly and has no memory of the rest of that night. She claims to have woken up naked the next morning with Safi atop her, "having sexual intercourse with her." When she asked him to stop, he did.

That part right there does not sound consistent with rape. Usually when the victim says stop, the rapist does not. She has no memory, so how in blazes can she say she was raped? Maybe she was drunk and said things she wouldn't say if sober.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

dalegg, I don't think you read me correctly. Or perhaps it wasn't clear. We wouldn't bar a victim of theft from saying 'the man stole' or a witness to a murder saying 'I saw him murder the guy right in front of me!' Why the hell would we prevent the rape victim from saying he forced himself on her?

If juries don't automatically convict someone because the victim said "He took my wallet" instead of "I gave him an involuntary personal loan", they can figure out that when someone testifies, that's not the same as as proof. Are they going to take 'sexual assault' out of the charges, so they aren't prejudiced by that? The victim testifying should not constitute unreasonable prejudice.

Christ. We can only conclude Nebraska doesn't care about women getting raped.

--

Only problem with saying that DNA evidence = castration is that the new defense is that it was consensual, even if the guy drugged the woman.

Wait- I think you could bar a person from saying "I saw him murder the guy right in front of me". Murder is a crime. The actual act would be something like-

"I saw him stab him", or "I saw him shoot him". It would depend on the other circumstances described by the witness as to whether or not it was a murder or just manslaughter.

Same thing for a theft witness. They can't really say they saw someone "steal" something, they can say they saw that person take it and put it in their pocket, but until the store clerk testifies that he didn't loan the defendant the merchandise or permit them to take it, you cannot determine that the act was a theft.

And I would not prohibit someone from saying "he forced himself on her" if that's what he did. This would come down the line of questioning-

"He approached her"

"She pushed him and hit him"

"He forced himself on her"

etc, etc.

Thus describing rape without actually saying rape. I think you could do it. There is no such witness in this case though, otherwise it would be pointless for the prosecuter to ban the word rape. Most rape cases have no witnesses so they rely only on the testimony of the victim, and the defense attorney doesn't want the word "rape" to be used when many of her acts could be consistent with consentual sex.

"It is undisputed that they shared some drinks, and witnesses saw them leaving together. Bowen claims not to have left willingly and has no memory of the rest of that night. She claims to have woken up naked the next morning with Safi atop her, "having sexual intercourse with her." When she asked him to stop, he did.

That part right there does not sound consistent with rape. Usually when the victim says stop, the rapist does not. She has no memory, so how in blazes can she say she was raped? Maybe she was drunk and said things she wouldn't say if sober.

Rape doesn't have to involve violence - if Roofies are involved. Rape is hard to prove as it is - but you've got a lot better case going for you if have demonstrable injuries from the experience. Even then its not guaranteed (unless the girl is severely beaten up) and the arguments get distasteful - how "she likes it rough" etc.

[dalegg 143]

Rape doesn't have to involve violence - if Roofies are involved. Rape is hard to prove as it is - but you've got a lot better case going for you if have demonstrable injuries from the experience. Even then its not guaranteed (unless the girl is severely beaten up) and the arguments get distasteful - how "she likes it rough" etc.

That's also understood, but since she is claiming rape she would have gone to the police who would have ordered blood tests to see if she had that in her system. That would have been further evidence the jury could evaluate. I'm guessing this doesn't exist because the jury was deadlocked and evidence like that would make a strong case for "date rape"

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Also that the women don't always come forward right away. Some never do..

Edited June 30, 2007 by erekose

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think I would also ask if this sort of thing is common.

Something else - they're charging this guy with "First Degree Sexual Assault". Yet the words "sexual assault' are banned in the court-room. So then how are the charges being presented to the jury? I assume its not a case of "guess the crime".

[one...two...tree 2,762]

All Bullsh!t aside, I had the unfortunate experience of serving on a jury in a rape trial in 1998.

Because I am an outspoken sort, I was elected foreman. Anyway, after 4 hours of testimony and evidence delivery, we retired to the jury room. The DA was unable to supply "slam dunk" DNA evidence, so we were left with testimony of 4 witnesses and the victim.

At the outset of deliberations, we were 9-3, in favor of conviction. Several more hours passed, and the judge stepped in to inquire if we were close to a decision. No, we said.

Several more hours passed, and to my surprise, the 3 that were originally not convinced, reversed their position.

Simultaneously, 3 others had doubts of guilt. We were again, 9-3. At the end of it, we stalemated there and it was declared a mistrial.

Later on, the DA approached me with "what happened". I gave the synopsis, in that the lack of significant evidence lost the case. At that stage, I learned that this was the second trial for this guy.

About 2 years later, I learned that he was convicted of another rape, with DNA evidence.

Guess the majority of us were right in the first instance.

Rape sucks. If I had my way, castration sentence for the absolutely guilty ones, backed by DNA evidence.

Wow, William. Well, you all did the best that you could - which was to decide based on the evidence provided.

[britty 1]

I should really have typed that clearly I would want to see the extreme punishments I mentioned carried out on someone who was without any doubt, guilty of the crime of rape. Somone did point out that jurys might be less likely to convict a rapist if they knew that castration was the sentence. I think thats a very good point and one I hadnt considered. My judicial system clearly needs more work....

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I should really have typed that clearly I would want to see the extreme punishments I mentioned carried out on someone who was without any doubt, guilty of the crime of rape. Somone did point out that jurys might be less likely to convict a rapist if they knew that castration was the sentence. I think thats a very good point and one I hadnt considered. My judicial system clearly needs more work....

Any permanent physical alteration to a person, regardless of their guilt is barbaric, IMO. Also, keep in mind that jurors have been wrong in the past in finding someone guilty...one of the biggest reasons for the argument against the Death Penalty in murder convictions.

There are chemical ways in which someone can effectively have their sexual desire eliminated, but from what I've read and understood about serial rapists - it isn't a sexual drive that motivates them, but a sinister desire to control and do harm to someone else.

As for sexual assaults in general - they vary greatly. It is considered a sexual assault even if the couple are married and initially were consensual, but then one suddenly decides they want to stop while the other partner continues. My point is there are gray areas between sexual assault and consensual sex.

[sparkofcreation 0]

Dam I hate defense lawyers. Well most of them. How do they live with themselves.

I work in the court system, and the last time I did a trial, the guy was both obviously guilty and lying through his teeth. (It was a drugs case, FWIW.) There was a new prosecutor observing, and during a break she approached the defense attorney and congratulated him for doing such a good job for his client and said that she could never be a defense attorney. And he said something I'll never forget.

He said, "You know, when you decide to be a defense attorney, you think the guilty ones will plead out [that is, plead guilty] and you'll get them the fairest sentence you can, and then all your trial work will be defending people who are truly innocent of the crime. It takes a long time to accept that the right to have a trial by jury applies to everyone and that guilty people have a right to it just as much as innocent ones."

[keltic 1]

Rape doesn't have to involve violence - if Roofies are involved. Rape is hard to prove as it is - but you've got a lot better case going for you if have demonstrable injuries from the experience. Even then its not guaranteed (unless the girl is severely beaten up) and the arguments get distasteful - how "she likes it rough" etc.

That's also understood, but since she is claiming rape she would have gone to the police who would have ordered blood tests to see if she had that in her system. That would have been further evidence the jury could evaluate. I'm guessing this doesn't exist because the jury was deadlocked and evidence like that would make a strong case for "date rape"

i certainly hope that you never have a woman close to you that goes thru a rape... some of us did not go to the police out of fear... its easier now than it was, but until you have been violated you cant begin to understand what it is like... going thru a rape exam is like being raped all over again

and "date rape" is rape

[dalegg 143]

Rape doesn't have to involve violence - if Roofies are involved. Rape is hard to prove as it is - but you've got a lot better case going for you if have demonstrable injuries from the experience. Even then its not guaranteed (unless the girl is severely beaten up) and the arguments get distasteful - how "she likes it rough" etc.

That's also understood, but since she is claiming rape she would have gone to the police who would have ordered blood tests to see if she had that in her system. That would have been further evidence the jury could evaluate. I'm guessing this doesn't exist because the jury was deadlocked and evidence like that would make a strong case for "date rape"

i certainly hope that you never have a woman close to you that goes thru a rape... some of us did not go to the police out of fear... its easier now than it was, but until you have been violated you cant begin to understand what it is like... going thru a rape exam is like being raped all over again

and "date rape" is rape

Jeees. Because I'm saying there should be evidence in a rape case it means I'm insensitive? I understand clearly that many women who are actual victims of rape- and I absolutely consider "date rape" as actual rape- never said I didn't- do not go to the poice to get a rape exam because of emotional reasons. But what are we to do in these cases? Are you saying we just convict someone of rape because the woman gets on the stand and says "He raped me"? I'm out of line by asking for proof? Evidence is not important? Nobody ever cries false rape?

I hope a woman close to me never goes through rape too. I'm sure I would want every word in the Dictionary used again the guy if it happened, and if justice wasn't served, I'm just the sort of hot head who would make sure it did somehow.

[britty 1]

I should really have typed that clearly I would want to see the extreme punishments I mentioned carried out on someone who was without any doubt, guilty of the crime of rape. Somone did point out that jurys might be less likely to convict a rapist if they knew that castration was the sentence. I think thats a very good point and one I hadnt considered. My judicial system clearly needs more work....

Any permanent physical alteration to a person, regardless of their guilt is barbaric, IMO. Also, keep in mind that jurors have been wrong in the past in finding someone guilty...one of the biggest reasons for the argument against the Death Penalty in murder convictions.

There are chemical ways in which someone can effectively have their sexual desire eliminated, but from what I've read and understood about serial rapists - it isn't a sexual drive that motivates them, but a sinister desire to control and do harm to someone else.

As for sexual assaults in general - they vary greatly. It is considered a sexual assault even if the couple are married and initially were consensual, but then one suddenly decides they want to stop while the other partner continues. My point is there are gray areas between sexual assault and consensual sex.

There are varying degrees of assualt but I was supporting castration for rapists. I agree that rape is about power and control, but with a serial rapist, dont you think that castration would ensure that regardless of their motivation, the rapist simply wouldnt have the necessary equipment to be able to carry out this dispicable crime? Serial rapists, like other serial offenders need to be kept away from society, and if the judicial system doesnt always ensure this, then extreme measures need to be taken to protect the public.