I think it’s BS, and I agree with the defense attorney who speaks first. Why should the radio station be held at fault? Terms like “kind” and “great guy” are entirely subjective, and maybe I’m in the minority, but if a radio station was giving me this information, I wouldn’t believe it anymore than if I heard it from a random stranger.
Do you think the radio station has an obligation to perform a background check on people it’s setting up on dates? I say no. It wouldn’t hurt, but shouldn’t be a requirement. There are all kinds of caveats about meeting up with strangers, and yeah, it was poor judgement on this unfortunate woman’s part to say “sure, what the hell, I’ll come over to your house” to a guy she’d never met.
In this case, you don’t even need to pay for a $10 background check. A cursory search of the dude’s name on the Illinois Sex Offender site brings him right up. Hell, he’s even listed as “compliant,” which (though I’m no expert) sounds to me like his address is current.
Would the radio station be at fault if this guy had no history, but still assaulted her? Conversely, I don’t see a prior conviction as proof positive that he’ll rape again. Should the radio station jocks have done their research? Absolutely. But required to do the research? I think that’s specious, at best. Were I the woman, my first thought certainly wouldn’t be “sue the radio station!” anymore than I’d sue any other third party for my rapist assaulting me.
I dunno. I am not a big fan of America’s penchant with blaming someone else anytime something bad happens.
That said the radio station assumed some responsibility here. They made claims he was a “great guy” and such. On what basis were they making that claim? One would presume a station running such a contest would provide at least some reasonable level of checking the contestants out. They are pulling from the public-at-large and who knows who might turn up? Had they done at least a cursory check (on both the man and the woman) I’d think they’d be off the hook as they should not be responsible. In this case though there is some culpability.
Does Illinois have proportional (right term?) civil cases? For example they court decides the woman bears 70% responsibility and the radio station 30% thus the woman collects 30% of damages awarded (had it been 100% damages)?
Maybe he honestly seemed like a great guy when the jocks talked to him. Or maybe it came straight from him. Nevertheless, whether or not someone’s a “great guy” is entirely subjective, and up to me to decide.
This raises another interesting question–would the station be more or less liable if the roles had been reversed, and this woman sexually assaulted the guy?
Consider: XYZ blender has plenty of information and complaints on the web. Googling it gives you, on page 1, information that the manufacturer is about to make a recall. A radio station jock tells you “XYZ blender is awesome,” because all of their personal experiences with it have been positive. You run out and buy one, despite never hearing of it before. It catches fire in your kitchen, causing thousands in property damage.* Do you get to sue the station?
*I know, I know, I already forsee someone calling me out for comparing rape to a blender fire.
He’s on the registry because of the sexual abuse with this woman. Before this, he had convictions for violating orders of protection, but I don’t think he was in the registry, because violating protective orders isn’t a sex crime.
Still, though, if I were set up on a date with a complete stranger by a complete stranger, I’d consider fronting the $10 for a background check. I certainly wouldn’t agree without hesitation, and I most definitely wouldn’t go over to the guy’s place.
If you go home with someone on the first date then you’ve already planned to fuck them. That’s why we have etiquette for such situations. If you don’t want sex don’t go home with your date.
How about accepting a date with a stranger? I mean, why would anyone even do that if they weren’t hoping to have sex? Surely she signed something that gave him access to all her orifices right there at the radio station!
I think there is this feeling, perhaps an illusion, that if someone is putting himself in the public eye he wouldn’t dare commit a crime. Contestants on shows like The Bachelor or Joe Millionaire don’t even know the true identity of who they’ll be meeting (and dating) when they sign up, so they can hardly do background checks. If it’s so easy to check up on someone for a tenner, you’d think the station would have done it themselves. Still, not sure she has a case. False advertising, maybe?
It did actually. The moment she chose to go home with this guy she excercised control over her life. The Radio Station should have no responsibility past his front door. We have a social convention of NOT going home with someone on the first date for this very reason. Every first date I went home with someone, I got laid. It’s expected it’s understood and Television characters have been turning down invitations to ‘come inside’ for that very reason. Because it’s a social convention. It exists for a reason.
According to the Chicago Tribune, she didn’t go home with this guy, the date was to take place there. It wasn’t a case of “Wow, I had a really great time, want to come upstairs for coffee?”.
However, I’m at a loss if sex is ‘expected’ if a first date is to take place at one of the individual’s house. I’ve never thought about it before. Still, it doesn’t give him the right to drug and rape her, of course. Nothing does.
To be fair, I got the impression that producers of The Bachelor do screen all the contestants. But they’re on national television. A local radio station has less visibility, less income, & takes bigger chances.
Well that’s different. I guess I jumped the gun. No one has the right to rape anyone no, but there are levels of propriety where the third party should be absolved of responsibility.
No, the date was to take place at the Chicago House of Blues. That evening, he told her that he was too tired to go, and invited her over to his house instead for drinks and pizza.
At that point, all kinds of warning bells would be going off in my head. Not so much if it weren’t the first date – or the first time meeting, period.
It’s not as if the radio station promoted “win a date with this guy – and by date, we mean, go to his house for pizza and drinks.” They arranged for them to meet; anything after that is the responsibility of the two involved.
I’m curious what the follow-up was supposed to be like (all the articles seem to supply the same information). Did she expect cameras or a third-party there or anything? Were they supposed to call in during or afterwards to spill about the date? This sort of on-air promo doesn’t usually end with the date, does it?
Going home with someone on a first date usually comes with a certain assumption, and this is culturally understood, so much so that it is a pop-culture plot device that no one bothers to explain via the plot because they assume that you understand the convention. Debating that such a convention exists is not something I am interested in, because it exists, and most people understand that.
