yes, that’s ugly. of course, it’s also not necessarily criminal to be an asshole. don’t know if there’s laws against making any statement to an absent third party after an event where the threat made didn’t happen (ie, she wasn’t killed, and, in fact if the email is to believed, he’s talking about what he’d like to do in the future after the person had already left. I believe the defense is already pointing out "how stupid would it be to write such an email after raping the person? how likely is it that had you written said email and had raped the person, that you wouldn’t have included raping the stripper in the offensive email?)
third option “It didn’t happen”. seems to be the claim here - that she was injured prior to her arrival, that no DNA from team members match = if she was raped, it wasn’t at that place by those guys.
No, she is not really “going through” anything compared to what someone wrongly convicted (or even wrongly indicted) of rape would go through. If she falsified the accusation, she should be charged and tried and go to jail for a term of years not significantly less than that which the persons she (in that scenario) had falsely accused would have faced.
That this won’t happen, cannot happen, indicates something is wrong with our system.
No, and I wasn’t implying that his writing that email implied anything about his guilt. Actually, I think it tends to speak more to his innocence of the alleged crime, or certainly ignorance of it. It speaks volumes to his personal character, or lack thereof, but hey, like you said… no laws against being a reprehensible asshole.
Perhaps you should channel your indigation into some action and take that up with your legislators. Isn’t making a false report a crime? Certainly those who were accused could seek civil recompense against their accuser if the charges are proven to be completely fabricated. I was referring to the unofficial harassment which seems to occur to rape complainants in high-profile, high-publicity cases.
Frankly, I don’t think it will ever be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the woman was raped, or that she wasn’t raped and made the whole thing up, so the point is moot in this case anyway.
Have you seen any evidence of such in this case? More to the point, are you aware of, or do you care about the extreme harassment that has been directed at the lacrosse team members, at least 43 of whom are guilty of nothing more than being at a dumbass jock party?
Bwahahahah. Right. What’s she going to do, steal another taxi and sell it to pay them off?
Having read the NC criminal statute from cover to cover while enrolled at NC Central in the late 90’s, the state’s rape statute has an element that requires penetration of the vagina or anus by some unwanted item or body part.
As far as “sodomy”…
The state used to have an “acts contrary to the order of nature” statute, NC General Statute 14-177, but I’m uncertain as to whether certain Supreme Court rulings have blunted its force. It used to ban bestiality, gay sex, and oral or anal sex between heterosexuals.
14-177 was formerly used when you could prove anal sex but not rape. It was a low-grade felony. I don’t know if it’s still in force at all.
Here is a link where Nifong says he is waiting on more test results and that further tests are possible. The statement was made “during a forum held at North Carolina Central University.”
The DA has distinguished himself by his mishandling of the case so far. This is another example of his pandering to the press as well as his constituency. His comments concerning the evidence in a case where no one has been charged with a crime, coupled with his assertions that a crime has definitely been committed while failing to charge anyone, are in my opinion unprofessional.
To clear up a misconception upthread–he is not running for re-election. He was appointed, not elected.
There aren’t that many “high-profile, high-publicity” rape cases as an absolute number, so I doubt that the harassment, assuming it exists, harms too many people, whereas if the purported Air Force study I found an indirect cite to is correct, there may be a non-trivial and recurrent number of “false accusation” cases (that do not ever become high-profile).
“Proof beyond a shadow of a doubt” is not relevant to any legal standard with which I am familiar, so it’s your comment, not the issue, that seems moot. “Probable cause” sounds more like an indictment/criminal information standard and “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” (of rape, or of making a false allegation thereof) is the burden in criminal cases.
Don’t worry, I will take up the issue of the inappropriately-small (IMHO) penalties for false allegations with my elected representatives though I’m not sure they’ll be as responsive as they ought. But what you don’t seem to appreciate is the separate problem of prosecutorial discretion, whereby whatever statutes are on the books (anti-rape, or anti-false allegation) need to be applied by the prosecutor. This provides necessary flexibility.
It also, though, provides potential for abuse of this flexibility. If a given hypothetical prosecutor were being overly zealous in his exploitation of the discretion granted to him as to one statute (by, for instance, holding a pep rally that apparently resembled an episode of the Arsenio Hall show, with loudly applauding audience members reacting as though he were conducting the “rape” investigation as a personal shout-out on their behalf), or underly-zealous (by, for instance, not committing to stern prosecution of any false crime complaints in his jurisdiction), then that would (hypothetically) be a problem of misuse of prosecutorial discretion. As is customary when an elected official misues (or is believed by a member of the public to have possibly misused) his powers, criticism of him in the public square (here) is an acknowledged and appropriate remedy (which may be pursued instead of, or in tandem with, legislative reform).
The specification of the accusation disturbed me - three lacrosse players. Since they DNA tested all 46 players, I would presume she couldn’t identify them by name. We have yet to see if she IDed anyone from a lineup.
ouryL, they tested all of the white Lacrosse players, she specified* 3 white Lacrosse players*, so the sole black team member wasn’t made to give a DNA sample to be exact.
ESPN is reporting that, per the DA, 75 to 80% of rape and sexual assault cases are prosecuted without DNA evidence. That strikes me as tricky wording on his part, since there is DNA evidence in this case. It just doesn’t help the prosecution. On an unrelated note, my distaste for the way the prosecutor is handling this case is growing.
No, actually, they’re not. Even if (please, everyone, note the qualifier) they are completely exonerated and it eventually turns out that this was an utter bullshit lie from start to finish, they’re not “home free.”
They have already spent thousands of dollars on lawyers, they will have lost the opportunity to play lacrosse (for the seniors, their last opportunity), and they will have undergone months of stress, embarassment and undeserved vilification. I’ll wager that there are some students and teachers on that campus that will continue to assume the players must be guilty of something – and treat them accordingly – even if Jesus Christ himself was to descend and pronounce each and every one of them innocent.