As a general rule, proceedings in a criminal court are matters of public record. Secret trials are not exactly in keeping with our theory of government, although I suppose that’s been undermined recently to the point where we’ve gotten used to it.
Is there any way they could release all details of the case except the actual names? I know jack shit about the legal system; I’m just trying to brainstorm ways to avoid these kinds of problems. I don’t believe the way these cases are handled now is a benefit either to the alleged victim or the accused. I would also echo the concern of someone upthread that someone can be convicted based only on the alleged victim’s testimony. If true, that’s a problem. We require physical evidence for other crimes, I don’t see why it shouldn’t also be required for rape. And I say that as someone who feels society is strongly biased against rape victims in general.
Does something being a matter of public record mean that news agencies are necessarily entitled to report on it, or simply that individuals are entitled to find out ? I’d like to think that there’s a middle ground between secret trials, which are obviously dangerous, and a level of reporting that is humiliating at best for the victim, and potentially dangerous for someone found not guilty of the crime.
Pretty much, yeah. What else would it mean? That the public could observe the proceedings as long as they never spoke of it?
That someone could contact the court and find out the results of the proceedings. There is a difference between speaking about something and publishing it.
I’m not advocating this level of control of the media, just wondering whether it’s a possibility.
In this case, though, it seems to me that the issue wasn’t whether her word alone would be enough to get a conviction or not, but that he was given the choice between 5 years behind bars or an insanely longer sentence if he dared to plead his case.
I really dislike the concept of plea bargains, but then it’s probably in large part a cultural thing.
However, even accepting the concept, having to pick between a guaranteed 5 years sentence and rolling the dice for either 0 or 40 years can’t be a good thing. Either the crime deserve a sentence in the 5 years range or it deserves a sentence in the 40 years range. That the lenght of it would change so drastically depending on whether you’re pleading your case or not (as opposed to depending on the actual circumstances of the case) makes no sense.
It is true.
But we don’t require physical evidence for other crimes.
A robber can be convicted on my testimony that he robbed me, and nothing more.
You’d need a Constitutional Amendment to allow the government to prevent media organizations from releasing the names.
Could someone give a couple quick points on why the courts couldn’t handle such cases the same way they do for juveniles?
Ok, I did not know that. But would a case with that little evidence be all that likely to go to trial?
Are we saying that the way things currently are is the way they have to be? In all honesty, I would be more inclined to believe a rape victim’s testimony than not believe it. That might be problematic in the cases where the “victims” are oughtright lying.
Damn, I wish people weren’t so horrible to each other.
It wasn’t a civil judgment. It was a settlement. The whole point of a settlement (generally) is that the defendant doesn’t admit liability. If it turns out they weren’t liable, well, they said so all along and they were free to go to trial. Some states have statutory provisions governing restitution for insurance fraud, but the school was probably self-insured and unlikely to fall under any of the statutory provisions anyway.
A bigger problem, as noted above, is that she has no assets and the school would have to spend additional money to litigate with nothing to recover.
Ahh, that makes some sense. Still sucks though. Well, I guess we can at least hope in the long run she’s fucked up her life more than she did his.
I can sue anyone for anything but that doesn’t mean that it will go anywhere. I don’t get to prosecute you for rape, the district attorney has to do that and they have prosecutorial immunity. That lawsuit is going nowhere, it will be dismissed out of hand.
The problem with all your outrage is that 10-20% of the accusations of rape are false. These cases often never make trial because the cops or prosecutors can usually figure out that the woman is lying but being falsely accused with rape isn’t a black swan event.
You really think one out of every five rape accusations is a lie?
Cite.
Seconded.
I’ve always read that false rape accusations are pretty rare, and no more common than false accusations of other crimes.
False accusation of rape - Wikipedia lists lots of different studies. They show anywhere from 1.5% to 90% false rape accusations. Throw out the obvious outliers, and in the middle there you will find something like 10% to 25% false accusations.
I think one needs to note the difference between “I was raped (and its true) and I/we think its this guy (who it isnt)” and “I was raped (and I wasn’t) and he did it (which he obviously did not)”. The second is most likely lower than the first but I also think the second is a bit higher than many people would like to think it is. Common? Probably not. Rare? No.
That is pretty remarkable (or horrifying).
Those examples seem to include both false accusations and cases of mistaken identity. Not that it matters to the falsely accused, but I draw a distinction in my mind, at least, between women who intentionally lie about being raped by someone they know and women who get a false “hit” on a stranger in a photo lineup and then become convinced it’s the guy.
ETA: sniped.
Well, look at it from her side. Its a bad side to begin with, but Banks has already been cleared. What more would giving up $750000 do for him? Nothing really. What about the school? Over the last 5 years, its probably not a whole lot. Yes, she lied and she SHOULD return the money, make a full apology, and admit that she lied. But personally I may not want to return the money either. I would find some way to rationalize it so that I can keep it, figuring it won’t do the other parties much good. Especially if she spent it already and can’t return it