Justice doesn’t depend on memory. If he did the crime, and it certainly looks like he did, then he should do the time. Given the circumstances it should be fairly easy to crack one of the cheering crowd to turn state’s evidence and there may even be DNA evidence or residual traces of the drug in her system since the event was recent. Rape kits are very sophisticated these days. If the prosecutor doesn’t want to pursue it, call the press. They love stories like this. Then call a state representative, senator, governor, etc. This kind of shit should not stand.
Forgive me, but you seem to be answering a different question than was asked. The question is not whether Zöe should attempt to prosecute Carl despite her current inability to testify about the precise circumstances of the rape, but whether she should take the desperately needed money.
Also, a question for the lawyers. Apart from the obvious issue of witness tampering and obstruction of justice, is there any reason to think that Carl’s father would be civilly liable for his son’s actions? Carl is a grad student, and there’s no indication he’s Doogie Hower, so he’s gotta be in his mid 20s, and of course the rape did not occur on Carl’s father’s property. Has Zöe any ground to sue him?
Disclose the attempted bribery/witness tampering, prosecute everything fully, AND file civil actions against the rapist, the school, Daddy Warbucks, the lawyer, her law firm, the other co-conspirators in the video, the videographer, and anyone else potentially liable. And maybe contact the Justice Department about the witness relocation program. Serious money is involved, which can lead to people getting seriously dead.
(sorry for the hijack, but I am even sadder now that I see two people with misguided, confused parents. At least, in your post at the SDMB, you spelled their names right and correctly put the umlaut on the e, not the o.)
Damn you for thinking to call him Daddy Warbucks before me, Oak.
Does the father’s liability stem only from the witness tampering? Carl’s an adult, after all, and this assault did not occur on property on which Daddy W. had control of or title to.
Can a lawyer be sued for following a client’s direction, however unlawful?
If, as someone suggested upthread, Z were to ask for more money, would she be committing extortion?
::shrugs ::
if I felt like complaining, I would have. I’m not bothered much.
It’s a diaeresis, not an umlaut; it informs the reader that the o is to pronounced in a separate syllable from the e. Since the exact same effect is achieved by by the diaeresis over either letter, I have a hard time seeing either spelling as superior to the other. And when the New Yorker uses the diaeresis in spelling cooperate, I believe they place it over the first o (though I’m not sure.
I think MMMV. I certainly can’t tell, unless I’ve been getting really freaky.
With whose money? Lawyers are only free if you’re the defendant.
sigh Yeah, I have to agree that this hypothetical reads radically different if you’re actually in dire need of money. I would like to have ethics, and I absolutely agree, ethically, with all that’s been said in favor of prosecution, but in reality, I’d take the money.
Well I guess it also presupposes that the video shows that it was a rape, rather than nothing more than sex taking place. If so, the maker is remarkably stupid.
It also presupposes that the the lawyer is stupid enough to talk about the case, and draft the agreement in such a way that “proves” that a rape took place, rather than merely offering Zoe a job at $xxx pay per month.
ETA - sorry but I don’t find the argument “but I’m a lesbian in a relationship” to be a compelling argument that the sex MUST have been rape (absent something clear on the video that it was such a thing)
In the world I live in, which just happens to be the same one where I have practiced law for going on 16 years now, lawyers would be lining up for the chance to get this case on a contingency fee contract. You’ve got a damning video of the principal defendant, being cheered on by his likely comparably well-heeled friends, a school, a lawyer/law firm–lots of deep pocket defendants that likely at the very least have lots of umbrella policy insurance coverage. I might even quit my current job to take the case privately—and likely retire off the attorney’s fees. The probable conviction on the rapist makes the civil suit against him a slam dunk, and likely prompts the school to settle quickly. I figure at least $5 million from the rapist, another $2 million from the school, $1 million each from the cheering crowd, half a million from the lawyer/firm, and maybe $250 grand from the videographer, minimum. Then there’s book/movie rights…the girl for her story, and the lawyer for a courageous Erin Brockovich type thing. Yup…I could definitely retire on a case like this.
And aren’t you presupposing that the crowd and / or the videographer knew that it was rape? (they probably did, but I don’t know that it’s the slam dunk you are assuming - especially if she was drugged with something that left her mostly ambulatory)
I’d advise her to take the deal, but with a little extra something. Carl has to have his penis, testicles, and scrotum surgically removed, and she gets to keep them as souvenirs. Daddy is well connected, and apparently has no problems finding unethical lawyers, so he can find a surgeon to perform this surgery. Zoe gets to inspect the surgical site before she signs the agreement not to prosecute.
Carl is still able to rape, mind you, because he can either assist other people to rape, or rape using foreign objects. But he is much less likely to rape, and he won’t get his orgasms that way.
I realize that this won’t happen. So the next best thing is to prosecute the bastard and his cheerleaders, and then sue the socks off of him, his cheerleaders, his daddy, his lawyer, and anyone else who is remotely connected with the case.
It’s not clear to me what, exactly, the video shows.
With apologies to my colleague Oakminster’s retirement plans, I can’t tell if the video unambiguously shows a rape. If Carl can argue that the video shows a consensual group sex scene, then criminal liability will be difficult to establish. And given that several days have passed, there is unlikely to be any other evidence to use.
So to me, the answer depends entirely on the video. If Zöe can’t use the video to prove rape, then she may not even get the prosecuting attorney to indict, much less get a criminal conviction. Without the criminal conviction, her chances of a a civil suit plummet.
And at that point, her best leverage becomes her silence, so she should take the deal.
On the other hand, if the video does unambiguously show a rape, then she should insist that the rape prosecution proceed, and then she’ll have her pick of contingency lawyers ready to work on her civil case.
If she doesn’t press charges, it’s kind of setting a precedent that anybody with money can rape anybody they want and not face any consequences. So I wouldn’t feel right advising her to take the money.
I noticed that you left your location unspecified in your user profile. I’m beginning to suspect that you realized that ‘Mars’ would have had the Men in Black on your trail.
To answer your question, because (a) the assault happened on campus, and (b) they have money. That seems to be all that’s required for a lawsuit these past few decades, here on the planet Earth. (Not to say that the school would lose if they defended themselves, but they might find it cheaper to settle.)
Many schools pressure rape victims to file charges only within the school’s security system, not the city police. By doing this, they keep their sexual assault statistics artificially low, and make their campus look safer.
Why would the school pay?
Why would the crowd pay?
What makes you think that the rapist has $5 million of his own money?
$250,000 for a nude video?! Someone rips out your eye and you will probably get less than €100,000
Also, what the firm did is criminal, but I fail to see how she herself would have a civil suit against them.
And in the world I live in, there are two kinds of lawyers: expensive ones and ambulance chasers*. Neither of them are people I -or Zoe, I suspect- has any (professional) experience with, know how to contact, or believe would really help me. Perhaps it’s a self-esteem thing, perhaps it’s sheer ignorance of how the system works. Whatever it is, it would cause me to view finding a lawyer and then waiting and waiting and waiting for court dates as far more of a burden than I’m willing to endure when I could have financial security and a better education than I ever dreamed of being able to afford - basically, everything I would fund through a settlement, anyhow.
*Please, please, don’t take this as a personal insult. I know that there are plenty of wonderful lawyers who are wonderful people. But I haven’t used a lawyer professionally, and would have no idea how to go about finding a good one willing to work for free, no matter how good my case is. And yes, that’s a problem. But it’s probably one Zoe shares.
Refraining from complimenting the detail of your imagination, and bearing in mind that coming from another country where laws against rape were historically ferocious * I have no knowledge of American law: wouldn’t accepting money be a legal offence of Compounding a Felony ?
Obviously she should prosecute; still better, Ash should hire a hitman and destroy Carl.
[ Written in 1911 ] In England, under the Saxon law - adopted, probably, from a Teutonic code - death was also the penalty, but under the Normans this was changed to the loss of both eyes and castration; this punishment remained in force until after the time of Bracton (de Corona, f. 147). The statute of Westminster I. (1275) reduced the offence to a trespass, with a penalty of two years’ imprisonment and a fine at the king’s will. This lenity, it is said, produced terrible consequences, and, accordingly, the statute of Westminster II. (1285) again declared the offence a felony, with, however, benefit of clergy. This was the state of the law until 1575, when the punishment was made more severe by taking away the benefit of clergy. The offence remained capital until the Offences against the Person Act 1861, by which and subsequent amending acts it is now regulated. The present punishment is penal servitude for life or for not less than three years or imprisonment with or without hard labour for not over two years.
1911 Encyclopaedia
Although the last penalties may seem milder, Victorian and Edwardian prison regimes ( and in the USA also at that time ) were such as to be no better than being in a concentration camp for the rest of your natural life.
