A number of us have raised questions about the actions of the police in this case. Any comments?
A conscious, wanton, or willful disregard for or indifference to the truth, or care for thr truth that is a gross deviation from the standard a reasonable person would exercise in similar circumstances; disregard of the truth or falsity of her statements when she was aware of its probable falsity or entertained serious doubts about its truth or when there were obvious reasons to doubt the veracity and accuracy of her story.
I don’t know, how often does that happen? I mean getting jumped in the dark and raped, then in the same night having to identify a person while they’re being arrested in the headlights of a cop car. The mind plays strange tricks in stressful situations, and I can’t be sure that I wouldn’t convince myself that the person in the cop car wasn’t the rapist, even if they appeared to be radically different in a well lighted courtroom. My gut sense is that this sort of thing happens a lot.
Which means of course that we shouldn’t convict people on the word of a single, stressed out, eye-witness. I don’t think it means we should hold a victim liable for thier accounts, assuming that the accounts are given without a concious intent to deceive.
When a victim positively identifies an assailant at the scene, it’s pretty standard for the police to act on that identification for an arrest.
Arguably, the police identification to the media caused more problems than her ID. But the fact of the matter is that arrest records are generally public - for obvious civil liberty reasons. The media could have chosen to refrain from widespread reporting until there was more evidence; they did not.
I don’t believe the police acted wrongly.
So how do we convict a rapist if the only witness is his victim?
Thats a terrible road to go down. You are requiring that a woman, or a victim of any crime for that matter, who has in this case been raped and probably experienced violence to be accurate in the information they give to police. That is simply not a reasonable expectation to have of information from a victim. It is the polices job to take that information, evaluate its accuracy and act accordingly. The police, not the victim, should be responsible for the actions they take assuming of course that the victim is honest in their testimony.
As I said before, the victim provided the physical evidence that cleared the man, so I don’t think she was intending to decieve. And in cases where a victim does wish to deceive, I think we can agree that that should/would be illegal.
Why would a rape victim not care about the truth. If her intent was just to finger some random guy, why go to the police at all. Anythings possible, but I really doubt that a jury would be convinced that a rape victim didn’t care about the true identity of her assailent.
I’m still unconvinced. Based on what Peter Wiggin posted, it seems like the police were overly hasty (Hrrrrummmm!! 
).
I don’t see how recklessness can be proven unless she knew the guy beforehand and had some kind of grudge against him. She seems to have told the police that she was still traumatized, so I think that should’ve been taken into account.
Once again, though, I think the OP owes this thread a link. This isn’t another one of those “gotcha” OPs, is it?
John Mace:
Just googled the guy’s name in quotation marks (plus checked Google news):
So doesn’t look like this has anything to do with native-born Virginians. 
I think the chances that a fresh rape victim would be “reckless” in identifying the suspect are so absurdly small that I would have to see some kind of solid, tangible evidence of intentional deceit rather than just reading tea leave and trying to make a personal judgement about whether the plaintiff looked enough like the real perp to justify the identification as being in good faith.
Don’t know, it’s probably fairly difficult to do if there’s no other evidence and the defense has a competent lawyer. But we can start another thread if we want to discuss wheather we should be able to convict on the basis of a single eye-witness account, I just mentioned it as an aside.
Me neither. They apparently thought he was a serial rapist, so it made sense to hold him till the DNA results came back. It sucks for the guy, but the fact is the police sometimes hold innocent people on faulty evidence.
If the rapist turns out to be a analogy for the Government of the State of Hawaii, I’m canceling my account
Bricker, how about the element of publication of the slander? The woman’s communication to the police (Is this the scum bucket who feloniously sexually assaulted you? Yes, it is) is probably privileged or conditionally privileged. If that is her only publication, assuming she did not repeat the ID in some press conference, there could be real trouble in getting past a summary judgement or motion for directed verdict.
Given that this is an accusation of crime and therefore slander per se, but for the communication / publication question I’d think that our rapee has real trouble. I suspect that privileged communication saves her bacon.
But he had absolutley nothing to do with it, his life was disrupted and reputation damanged.
I am all for reporting (real forceful) rape, but there is no justification for this, none at all. The dangerous part is if she is allowed to get away with this.
I hope he gets the full amount.
Do they not have the litigation privilege in Virginia? In California and many other states, this case would be thrown out immediately – statements made to law enforcement in the course of a criminal investigation cannot give rise to liability for any tort other than malicious prosecution, even if they are made with out-and-out malice. (Cal. Civil Code section 47(b) and Rest.2d Torts section 587, in case anyone’s interested.)
Get away with what?
Again, what specifically are you accusing her of? Knowingly making a false accusation, identifying the wrong person by mistake, pretending to be more certain about the identification then she was? If your going to say she shouldn’t be allowed to get away with something, its important to state what she shouldn’t get away with.
Thanks, but I think it’s important the **Bricker **share the specific cites and the specific information from which he is making claims. I don’t want to find out on page 3 of this thread that there is some information that only the OP knew about the case.
I’m not sure if the media can fairly be the target of the law suit. Presumeably they used the word “allegedly” correctly. The media has the right to report on arrests and charges. The falsely accused can only hope the viewing public understands “presumed innocent” - but of course the man’s reputation is damaged anyways.
The cops, in Bricker’s opinion, did nothing wrong. Sure, if a credible victim makes a positive ID the cops should arrest that person. But shouldn’t they be held accountable for using questionable investigative techniques? Without intending to impugn the poor victim in this case, I think it’s obvious in her still distraught state she is less than credible. It was within the cops’ purview to let her calm down, whip out a bunch of photos or set up a line up, etc.
But one issue that’s falling through the cracks of this discussion is: Should a person acquited of a sex crime be allowed to sue the victim? In my jursidiction it is not allowed (Ontario for sure, if not all of Canada). The arguement for this is, as has been said, to remove any fears an already reluctant complainant would have.
Therein, to me, is the more interesting debate. Let’s assume the victim was reckless by whatever definition. Which is the greater good - the wrongfully accused’s right to claim damages, or a potential future victim’s protection from being sued so she’s less reluctant to press charges?
Admitted bias: I’m not in favour of the restriction in Canada from a sex crime accused suing his accuser. I have personal knowledge of a case where a woman broke into someone’s house. He pressed tresspassing/mischief charges. She retaliated by having her son accuse him of fondling him. He was acquitted but it was a life changing, unfair experience. He suffered damages (legal fees, reputation) and has no legal recourse.
(Let me hasten to add: That situation is certainly an anomoly. I do not believe there is a rash of retaliatory accusations - I tend to believe that the difficulty in complaining of rape is a sufficient filter to weed out most intentionally false accusations.)
Question, Nature’s Call. If we’re going to somewhat reframe this debate beyond the facts of this case (and I have no issue with that), then are we talking about reckless misidentification of an alleged assailant or intentional misidentification of an alleged assailant?
Because, let’s be honest, they’re completely different things. Reckless is like a girl saying, “The guy who raped me is black. This guy is black. He’s the guy.” This would be reckless - just a careless disregard for the truth.
Intentional misidentification would be more like the situation you described above. “I hate Mr. X. I get raped, I’ll tell the police that Mr. X did it.” or “That suspect looks like my high school boyfriend who cheated on me. He’s the rapist.”
Here’s the complication: The actual impact on the misidentified “perpetrator” is the same. He gets arrested. Maybe he gets prosecuted. He lives with the shame and the media attention.
So do you think that these should be equally allowed in order to protect victims’ willingness to come forward? Or should they be distinguished?
FWIW in my opinion - they are not the same. I do allow that the impact of the misidentification can be the same - and devastatingly so - on the misidentified guy. But one is clearly a deliberate misuse of the legal system, whereas one is not. In my opinion, it’s too fine a line between reckless and raped, stunned, and reeling. I agree with protection from tort liability in the case of a reckless misidentification, not in an intentional case. (Understanding that there is probably criminal liability for intentional misidentification).
So to (directly) answer your question - the greater good depends on the wrong in the case. If it’s a reckless wrong, then the greater good lies in encouraging rape victims to come forward. If it’s an intentional wrong, then the greater good lies in the wrongfully accused’s right to seek damages.
- Peter Wiggen
I dunno; I had an freind who was seriously inconvenienced by a psycho ex who made numerous, repeated, false accusations. He was very lucky in that her allegations were so patently absurd – Tawana Brawley looked like a genius compared to this girl – that the cops and everyone knew they were bogus. But he still had cops showing up at his job with restraining orders every week or so (by law, they were granted automatically), and the lawyer’s fees damn near made him bankrupt.
Having said that, and supporting Bricker’s idea … I think this one’s way more on the cops than the victim.