On the right side of this page is a decidedly unscientific poll intended to informally gauge our readers' views on this issue: What is the foremost problem for those falsely accused of rape? We limit it to three choices, and for those who follow this issue closely, the choice is likely to be difficult.
The false rape movement is reaching the stage where we need to focus on certain issues in order to have a political impact and these seem to be the hot-button areas that cry out for reform.
We certainly invite any comments about other areas, too.
Thanks.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
62 comments:
with little or no punishment for false rape accusers, how does a civil society protect it's men/boys from nasty/violent/ vindictive women?? Not punishing false rape acussers should not bother all males...just the heterosexual ones.
The lack of anonymity makes a rape accusation a terror tool.
"The lack of anonymity makes a rape accusation a terror tool."
scott says, i never thought of it like that, but i think you are right, in large percentage of cases.
This is a hard one. All three are big issues.
I had to go with the automatic arrest, though, because the idea that there is probably cause to arrest merely on the basis of an accusation has to be against the constitution, and its a precedent that could be extended to other cases as well. If there were not automatic arrest, the anonymity would be a lesser issue (because you wouldn't be arrested unless there were really probable cause). Lack of punishment is also an issue, but I think that's the hardest one to win.
What is the foremost problem for those falsely accused of rape?
Well, quite frankly it is the lack of recourse towards the women. I believe they should be imprisoned for at least 5 years to start and if they have assets they should be forfeited to the one she falsely accused.
I think the punishment issue needs to be first and foremost in order to discourage a false rape report as an easy and painless revenge tool.
Automatic arrest, I'm iffy on this one. There should never be an arrest, ever, without a rape kit being done. I think an upstanding citizen in a civilized society should instead be first asked to volunteer his DNA before arrest, but a police officer should be assigned to watch him until the results come back to ensure he doesn't flee. Jailing immediately is just a lazy solution to a possibly nonexistent problem.
As far as anonymity: Start publishing the woman's name. That would be my second biggest issue.
A tough one. The automatic arrest is the most harmful to the male in the short term; the lack of anonymity is the most harmful to the male in the long-term; but the absence of sufficient punishment may be the most harmful to males, as a gender, in the long-term because it enables more false claims. If punishment does, indeed, deter crime, then the insufficient punishment would have to be the most serious problem.
As others have said a very ticky poll to answer. A bit like asking if it's worse to be tabbed in the eye or in the testicles.
I went for the non existent punishments just because it sends out the message that totally ruining someone's reputation, health and life is not a serious offence in the slightest.
The government doesn't even pretend to have any empathy for innocent men and their families any more. Their rights aren't even an issue. Anything that is pro-woman and pro-liar is automatically good.
It is a difficult call because all three items are equally symptomatic of the same underlying societal pathology. They grow from the same root. Any society sufficiently enlightened to comprehend the problem with any of the three, would straightway understand the problem with all three.
And if 'society' harbored such an enlightened understanding in the first place, none of this would have happened in the first place, hence, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now and this blog wouldn't even exist.
So, I'd need to say that all three items are about equally bad in their societal implications.
But the question 'which is worse' begs a further question: worse for what or whom? Worse in what context?
Societal implication is just one possible context, but putting myself in the place of the accused, I would undoubtedly give "first prize" to the second item. Much as I would dislike getting arrested on a feather-light pretext, or seeing my accuser go free as a bird, I would need to consider first of all the long-term damage to myself.
And the second item would wreck my life far more profoundly and permanently than either the short-term injury OR the long-term insult (respectively) of items 1 and 3.
Truly, it would be "a gift that keeps on giving." :(
False rape report could mean prison
'DELTA COUNTY -- A Gladstone woman could face prison time for allegedly making a false rape and kidnapping report to police back in February of 2008.
Wednesday, 27-year-old Amanda Miller-Tryan pleaded guilty to two counts of attempted false report of a felony, which is a two year felony. Four other false report charges were dismissed with the plea agreement.
Miller-Tryan said she and her husband concocted the story about a fake sexual assault and kidnapping after they had a physical altercation, and she felt she needed hospital attention.'
http://www.uppermichiganssource.com/news/news_story.aspx?id=325204
they ask what would be the biggest problem for the falsely accused.
There are so mant problems, listing them may require writing a book
I still say that the get out of jail free card for every false accuser is the worst problem, because that represents society and the legal system put an official stamp of approval on false rape accusations. It's one thing to pretend to be oblivious to a man's innocence, and a whole other thing to openly admit that you don't care about all of the lies and abuse against men and want to encourage even more lies and abuse.
They're doing this right in front of everybody and men are just going along with it.
As much as I'd like to say a bit of all 3, from my playings of Go, I have to choose the most strategic gain of the three...
I feel the corruption of the system would just rebalance if you fix only one of them, actually, for instance.
1. You no longer get automatically arrested; then they just take longer to arrest you as they own the courts. You're safe until they can placate a jury to convict you.
2. Your name is anonymous in the media. I have to admit, I don't know how long this anonymity lasts or under what conditions, so I'll assume it goes away if you ever actually get convicted. And your bad reputation certainly can't be completely erraticated after they release this "news", I mean, we all heard the phrase "SOMETHING must've happened!".
3. Punishing the false accuser; they probably would just rebalance to make it so that the case is "inconclusive" and neither are sent to jail. Feels like a win, but that's already the case in some instances. Point being, what we gain by doing this won't be accomplished, because if they KNOW they won't be convicted of false rape accusation, but tried anyway, they won't be deterred, methinks.
My priority would be 2, then 3, then 1. I know a court can ruin your career by summoning and resummoning you every single day so you can't work, though, so though it's last in the list, it's still something I want fixed (among several other reasons).
I don't see a poll. Where are the questions?
Amateur Strategist said...
" I mean, we all heard the phrase "SOMETHING must've happened!".
I don't think there are many people who haven't heard this old favorite shared by people with a mob mentality or, a desire to see someone suffer.
54% so far have voted for appropriate punishments for false accusers, as did I. Why? Because if false accusers receive appropriate punishments, they will have motivation not to accuse falsely. Furthermore we have already seen plenty of cases where false accusers are charged and even sentenced, so we already have some precedent, some progress in this arena.
the questions are in a small area near the upper right of the home page.
Jay M. Hammers - "54% so far have voted for appropriate punishments for false accusers, as did I. Why? Because if false accusers receive appropriate punishments, they will have motivation not to accuse falsely."
I have to agree what what Jay says. The primary issue in my mind is that lack of PREVENTION.
While in a given case, an individual man may end up suffering greatly from automatic arrest and no anonimity being given him - and in those individual cases either of those problems WILL be paramount - neither of these apply in all cases.
The one problem that does apply to all instance of false rape claims is the relative lack of punishment the false accuser is likely to face, providing little disincentive to chose to not lie.
I've just come across this blog. My son has recently been accused, but not charged with a rape. On July 4 I had to interrupt my trip to the beach and return home because my son had been falsey accused a raping his girlfriend whom he had been seeing for the past two and a half years. When I arrived home there were seven police cars in front of my house waiting for a search warrant from the magistrate's office. I thought to myself how ironic on Independence Day that a false accusation can have so much power. And yes, this is a form of terrorism.
Anonymous - "...my son had been falsey accused a raping his girlfriend whom he had been seeing for the past two and a half years."
You didn't go into much detail in your account, so let me just take a "stab in the dark" here:
The girls parents found out that she had been having sex with your son, and either they pressured her into falsely claiming to have been raped, or she's "sacrificing" your son to salvage her own reputation.
If I'm correct, it's not because of some great intuition or mental power - it's just that such scenarios play out with alarming regularity, and young men are made "disposable" for the sake of a girls reputation.
I think you're correct on both accounts. One detail, the last night she spent with my son, she was texted by her, unbeknowest to my son at the time, new boyfriend. When she received the text, she panicked, left the house abruptly, and then told the new boyfriend that she had been raped. Her parents , however, were under the impression that she stopped seeing my son more than a year and a half ago. And so I figure that her parents also come into play in this outrageous accusation.
"The one problem that does apply to all instance of false rape claims is the relative lack of punishment the false accuser is likely to face, providing little disincentive to chose to not lie."
slwerner, I am not disagreeing with you, and I need to explore this in greater length. I must admit, I have serious doubts about the deterrent effect of enhanced sentencing. I think I need to do a full-blown post on this.
First, I certainly think false accusers need a much stiffer punishment. That will require legislative action because most state statutes limit it to a year or two. The judges' hands are tied. In this hysterical rape culture, that might be difficult. We need much greater sentences if only to express our outrage over rape lies. I don't know how much deterrence it would have. Most women who tell rape lies know they can get in trouble for it, but are counting on the lie having it's intended effect. No one tells a rape lie thinking they will be caught. We give rapists extremely serious sentences and yet rape occurs. My guess is that if we tripled the sentence for false accusers (as we should -- at least), it would not have a great effect on the prevalence of false rape claims. I want to be shown I'm wrong on that -- I hope I am.
Second, for the man falsely accused but not convicted, can there be any greater long-term harm than the absence of anonymity? Every man accused of rape will be known as a potential rapist forever -- all that a potential employer needs to do is Google the man's name to find out what was alleged. It is a stain that can't be erased.
Third, if a man or boy were not automatically arrested on the basis of an allegation, if a claim of rape were not automatically assumed to be true, we might just start to change the entire mindset about rape claims. We would announce to the world that a rape claim is just that -- a claim -- and nothing more, and it does not, without more, necessitate depriving a man of his liberty.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the results of the poll, and clearly we need greater sentences, but I don't think it's as clear-cut as others do.
Pierce Harlan - "I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the results of the poll, and clearly we need greater sentences, but I don't think it's as clear-cut as others do."
My vote was not made lightly. I weight the greater intimate harm done to individual men both by their arrests and their names being made public, and, as I mentioned, in those particular cases, I felt that either (especially the lack of anonymity and it's attenuate harms) were a greater concern.
Yet, in a more over-arching way, I tend to believe that prevention is a more effective route. If potential false accusers can be dissuaded, out of fear of the punishments awaiting them, form making their claims in the first place, the other issues never come about.
And, of course, there are any number of false rape claims than never result in a man being arrested/identified, which, never-the-less lead substantial expenditures and unnecessary fears.
Your poll provide three very valid and important options, from which we asked to select the one we felt to be of greatest importance.
In my own estimation, the one thing that all false rape claims have in common is that the accuser was not adequately dissuaded from choosing to make that claim - which in turn, is what leads to all other harms.
Just my two cents, and not intended to diminish the importance of the other two concerns in any way.
Anonymous - "the last night she spent with my son, she was texted by her, unbeknowest to my son at the time, new boyfriend. When she received the text, she panicked, left the house abruptly, and then told the new boyfriend that she had been raped."
Ah! So it comes down to the "cover-up for cheating" reasoning.
I gather from what you've added that she was at your home, spending time (or whatever) with your son, when she found out that her other boyfriend was looking for her?
If so, I make this observation - it would seem to be in your sons "favor" that she came to his home, indicative of her desire to be with him.
Secondly, given that her parents were unaware of her involvement with your son, if you had been aware of the ongoing relationship between she and your son, and can testify/document to her having visited your house repeatedly during that time, I do believe it would be instrument in your son's defense.
At best, your expressing to her (through her parents, or the authorities) that you intend to "give her up" for her ongoing involvement with your son, might convince her that her charade is doomed, leading her to confess her lies earlier on.
Otherwise, at trial, it will go a long way towards demonstrating the motivation she would have to lie to cover up her relationship with your son.
I, for one, would be interested in hearing how this case developes in periodic updates.
In the meantime, best wishes to your son and your family in the nightmare scenario you may well be headed for.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "giving her up". Are you saying I should assure the parents that they will never see each other again? Right now my sense is not to talk with them and not to provide them with any information. This girl is a very needy person and would call my son several times a day. He has been instructed not to have any contact with her at all. I think he's learned his lesson.
"If potential false accusers can be dissuaded, out of fear of the punishments awaiting them . . . ."
Again, the question is whether enhanced sentencing along the lines we would realistically be able to achieve would serve to dissuade anyone. I tend to think that's doubtful.
Cristina "I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "giving her up"
Sorry for the lingo.
What I meant was that if she were made aware that her continued involvement with your son was going to be made public. The lingo regarding "giving up" another person can be loosely translated as testifying to their misdeeds. My ill-advised use of it stems from a high degree of expose to law enforcement and criminal prosecution (where it is quite common).
It seems to me that if her parents had been made to believe that she had broken up with your son while she continued to see him, there might be some reason that she wished to keep it a secret from them (and perhaps others).
That secret might just be the key to undoing her lie, and if she came to know that eh lie would eventually be exposed anyway, she might well also come to realize that she'll only dig herself a deeper hole if she continues on with her deception.
Police investigators are often able to gain recantations from false accusers when they present that accuser with evidence that tends to undermine their accusations - and which would become "public" should they not own up to their lies.
But punishment isn't just about deterrence. A false rape accusation is a permanent mauling of an innocent man's mind and his reputation. The only way for the state to make up for the role it places in enabling these crimes is to inflict CRUSHING sentences on the false accusers, so that their lives are ruined almost as badly as those of their victims. By punishing them lightly the state is spitting in the faces not only of the falsely accused but of men in general.
Pierce Harlan - "Again, the question is whether enhanced sentencing along the lines we would realistically be able to achieve would serve to dissuade anyone. I tend to think that's doubtful."
Pierce,
"Light or nonexistent punishments for false accusers" was the choice amongst provided answers to the question "What is the foremost problem for those falsely accused of rape?"
The actual possibility of being able to achieve a change wasn't suggested a a criteria in assessing which of the options one believed to be most important.
I don't see it as an "either-or" situation. All three can, and should, be simultaneously addressed with the goal of public policy reform.
It is my belief that far to many women and girls simply think that they will face no ramifications for lying about having been raped. Aside from the more desirable criminal/civil punishments which ought to be available, even light punishments and negative public exposure would be of some help - if only such information could be more widely disseminated so that women could be made aware that false rape allegations will not go entirely unpunished.
That's basically where I'm coming from on the question of the poll.
Anonymous - "The only way for the state to make up for the role it places in enabling these crimes is to inflict CRUSHING sentences on the false accusers, so that their lives are ruined almost as badly as those of their victims."
On the one hand, I am in full agreement with you - which is why I applaud the womans punishment from the most recent posting on this site
http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2009/07/woman-sentenced-to-three-years.html
Yet, on the other hand, I understand what Pierce is arguing in that it is unlikely that we can expect that such fitting punishments will ever be made a policy - at least in the near-term.
And, in addition to simply relying on criminal penalties, I believe that civil penalties/court ordered restitution could have a greater effect (in cases where the false accuser has resources which could be attached) if only women could be made to understand that they will end up paying (literally) for their pursuit of a lie.
The matter of how best to address false rape claims is definitely complicated, and open to various interpretations, so I don't wish to engage in any heated disputes as to approach nor severity of response. Suffice to say, I'd like tough, but I'd gladly settle for any incremental advancement towards that end - even if it seems disappointingly weak.
"The actual possibility of being able to achieve a change wasn't suggested a a criteria in assessing which of the options one believed to be most important."
First, I agree with you: all three can, and should, be simultaneously addressed with the goal of public policy reform.
Second, perhaps I didn't word the poll as well as I could have, but the more I am reading here, the less persuaded I am about the punishment aspect. Here is why: underlying your assertion that light sentencing is the most important problem facing the falsely accused is the premise that jacking up sentences will deter false accusers. I remain unconvinced that giving false accusers fair sentences -- by which I mean the kinds of sentences that anyone not drunk on chauvinism or feminism would reasonably think proper -- will deter false accusers. The fact is, we've always had a false rape claim problem, going back to Potiphar, and likely always will, to one degree or other. Just as we have a murder problem, despite the most stringent punishments. But for the men who actually are falsely accused, it is of little consolation that some hypothetical women might possibly have been dissuaded from lying about some hypothetical men because the hypothetical women realized they actually will serve jail time.
Anonymity, on the other hand, renders false rape claims far less a burden to men falsely accused across the board. And eliminating knee-jerk, automatic arrest on the basis of an accusation would render false rape claims far less harmful since it is the arrest and deprivation of liberty that is so breathtakingly unjust.
Thanks so much for all of your quick responses. I just discovered this blog this morning and I can't tell you how much better I feel since discovering it. At this point, I think that she made up the story to cover up for cheating. Furthermore, I think she told her parents that she had been raped. By telling them this lie she gains sympathy and support since her parents did not approve of the relationship. That he "raped" her just proves that "father knows best" and now she's ready to repent and be a "good girl". Whether they know that they have been seeing each other since their first break-up a year and a half ago is unknown. My guess is that they are unaware. Which brings me to your suggestion to "give her up". What you are suggesting is that in the event that my son is charged that it be made known that this is a very long-term relationship, and that the number of times they engaged in sex is too numerous to be counted. Yes, this is one of the cards that I am holding.
Pierce Harlan - "underlying your assertion that light sentencing is the most important problem facing the falsely accused"
Actually, that's not what I was meaning to assert.
Rather, my point would better be surmised as "light punishments leading to the wider perception of nonexistent punishments"
As has been discussed in the past, not only would it be difficult to enact policies requiring "appropriate punishments", but knowing the severity of potential punishments might actually have the untended consequence of deterring those who've already made a false claim from confessing.
It's definitely a tricky issue. But, I guess that I've always been a "pound of prevention..." sort, myself.
As we've also previously bandied about, I think that a sliding-scale of punishment directed at getting at false accusers to confess earlier-on would be more advisable that automatically seeking to punish the accuser with the same as the accused would be facing.
As a matter of what might be more readily achieved quickly, anonymity and cautiousness in making arrests are likely stronger alternatives for relief for those men affected. Still, as to the longer-term goal of reducing false rape claims, I'm going to continue to hold out for deterrence.
Cristina - "By telling them this lie she gains sympathy and support since her parents did not approve of the relationship."
I had gotten the sense that there was some element of social-standing involved between your son, the girl, and the sort of boyfriend they'd prefer for her - But I was reluctant to suggest it.
Yet, it is exactly why I felt that a threat to expose the long-term secret relationship would be effective.
If you have solid evidence of their long-running sexual relationship, DO NOT hesitate to play the card as soon as possible.
It is just the sort of information that will cause either the police or prosecutor from taking it any further - and spare your son further anguish. Please don't wait to drop it as a bombshell at trial. Use this most powerful revelation to help your son ASAP!
"If you have solid evidence of their long-running sexual relationship, DO NOT hesitate to play the card as soon as possible."
Upon reflection, I need to restate this:
Even if you cannot immediately give solid evidence of their relationship, you need to let the investigators know about it. That their even might have been a previous relationship will dramatically alter their approach, and give your son's story more credence.
If anyone else knows of their relationship (and it's intimate details) encourage them to help your son by also coming forward to investigators. You can go directly to the police and ask to speak to someone who's handling the case. Tell them it's urgent, and refuse to let them blow you off.
Don't count on being able to wait use any of this information in trial. The rape shield laws will likely be (mis) interpreted so as to disallow any testimony of a prior relationship. the jury will not learn about it until after they convicted your son. You need to get this to the attention of the investigators and/or prosecutor - and you're going to have to rely on them to do the right thing. I cannot stress any of this strongly enough.
Be respectful towards investigators/prosecutors. While they will at first seem like the enemy, they that vast majority are fine honest people, who, equipped with full knowledge will more than likely be willing to take a fresh look at the case, with a more jaundice eye towards the accuser.
NEVER, EVER, EVER VOLUNTEER ANY INFORMATION TO POLICE IF YOU ARE UNDER INVESTIGATION. HUGE MISTAKE!
YOU SHUT YOUR MOUTH AND GET A LAWYER. THIS IS DOUBLY TRUE IF YOU ARE INNOCENT.
I'M PUTTING THIS IN CAPS BECAUSE ANYONE WHO TELLS YOU OTHERWISE IS TRYING TO GET YOU CONVICTED.
AGAIN: YOU HIRE A REAL LAWYER, AND DO EXACTLY AS HE TELLS YOU. NEVER COOPERATE WITH THE POLICE -- IT IS THEIR JOB TO CONVICT YOU!
Slwerner, since when it evidence of a prior relationship a defense? Do you know anything at all about rape prosecutions? The vast majority of rape cases involve people who knew each other.
You're giving some really bad, misinformed advice that could get an innocent boy convicted. This is not to your credit.
"If you have solid evidence of ""their long-running sexual relationship, DO NOT hesitate to play the card as soon as possible."
I have tons of evidence of this long-standing relationship. I have been uncertain of how to respond this thing. I did contact an attorney the day this thing started, but his attitude has been there's not much I can do until your son has been charged. Do I go to the police/detectives on my own or should I get an attorney to do so. I happpen to live in the same town as the defense lawyers of one of the most prominent false rape cases in the nation. I think I felt paralyzed by this whole thing at first, but perhaps I should get in touch with the attorneys from this firm asap before the charges are formally made. By the way, I'm happy to keep this discussion on the blog for everyone to read and see, but you can also contact me directly at:
cristinas60@yahoo.com
Anonymous, I agree completely. We get a lot of emails here from people whose loved ones were falsely accused and we give the same advice every time: get the best criminal attorney you can find -- someone with trial experience in rape cases. Spare no expense because it's the single most important investment you will ever make. And then place your trust in his or her hands. I rarely get notes of thanks because some people would prefer not to mortgage the house to keep from going to prison. Sadly, this is where men are in 2009 -- there is no alternative.
To Pierce, Anonymous, slwerner
Say no more, I'm going to contact one of the best defense attorneys in the whole nation whose office is less than 5 miles from my house. I can't tell you how I luck I feel to have found this blog site today. I will keep you all posted.
Anonymous rants - ”Slwerner, since when it evidence of a prior relationship a defense? Do you know anything at all about rape prosecutions? The vast majority of rape cases involve people who knew each other.”
According to Cristina, her son is being investigated, but had not yet been charged. What I’m suggesting IS NOT A DEFENSE, but evidence to help direct the police in their investigation. The point is to not have him charged and arrested, and evidence of the girl being simultaneously involved with two young men does provide them with a possible motive for her making a claim against one of them in an attempt to conceal her consensual relationship with the accused from the other (and from her disapproving family).
Unless this girl had a rape examine which will ultimately find two or more sources of male DNA on her person, the fact that she has had an ongoing relationship with the accused will not be allowed to be revealed to the jury under the rape shield statutes. (If she is found to have more than one man’s DNA, then a rape shield exception allowing for an explanation of “alternate source” for the DNA could be utilized).
My source for this…well, I just asked my wife – a prosecutor who HAS handled rape cases - to verify what I've contended (which she did, BTW).
And the source of your opinion would be…?
Thought so.
If, as you theorize, all police are only ever out to convict the accused (just how they are supposed to do the courts work escapes me, I’ll admit), then just exactly what harm do you believe Cristina (whose not herself facing the possibility of charges) providing the police with her (and hopefully others) information as to the on-going secret relationship doing?
Are you suggesting that she, her son, and everyone else who might has such exculpatory evidence to offer simply remain silent and hope that the police (who, according to you have it in for the young man) will find their own way to that evidence? If they are already predisposed to railroad the young man, anything his mother presents to investigators (that they do not find confirmation for) is but hearsay, and cannot be used against her son in court anyway. Doesn't seem like such a great gamble. If she more comfortable only going through a lawyer, by all means, do it that way. But, get that information into the hands of the investigators. If they fail to follow through on that information, the young man is ion no worse position that what he is in without it being given to police. But, if the investigators are not given it to (hopefully) act on, then what?
Do you believe it’s best to sit back and allow the girl, her family, and even her other boyfriend to steer the investigation away from her relationship with the accused?
If the investigation fails to turn up that relationship, what’s the defense going to be in trial – he didn’t do it? What if there is DNA evidence that he did have sex with her? What then – given that at that point it will not be permissible to bring up their long-running sexual relationship?
What exactly do you know about either prosecuting or defending rape cases? How can you be so certain that your “remain silent” approach will not be what gets him convicted?
Tell you what, Pierce Harlan is an attorney. If he’s willing to offer them, I’m willing to defer to his advice on this matter – are you?
Anonymous - "The vast majority of rape cases involve people who knew each other.”
I neglected to mention:
And, most recantations of rape allegations come about because investigators confront accusers with their evidence of alternatives to her story (either "holes" they've encountered, or alternate information provided to them by others).
This is exactly what I would hope to have happen in Cristina's son's case - police confront the girl with the fact that they now know about the relationship with the accused, her facing being caught cheating on her other boyfriend, and that she also faced the possibility of her parents learning of the relationship they disproved of; as they press her as to her contention of rape.
Plenty of false accusers have "folded up" under such circumstances.
To my mind, it would be much. much better to head the whole thing off earlier, rather than later - sparing her son being arrested (publicly, as so many are), and his name being reports along with the charge of rape leveled against him.
But if you still believe it would be best to try to fight it in court, well, you are of course welcome to your opinion.
Cristina - "Say no more, I'm going to contact one of the best defense attorneys in the whole nation..."
For your son's sake, please, insist that this attorney take your information to the police investigators. Don't do as the one attorney has suggested, and wait for him to be charged.
Just to be clear, it is not that the relationship existed between your son and this girl that is important here - it is the secretive nature of the relationship, and her desire to keep it secret from her "new" boy friend and family that gave her a motive to lie about being raped.
But, this can only be of value to your son during the investigatory phase.
Despite the obvious contempt from law enforcement shown by some here, police have to deal many of the darkest elements of human behaviors. If anyone will understand that the idea of a woman "throwing" one lover "under the bus" in an attempt to conceal her infidelities is only normal and natural, it is police investigators (detectives, who've been around a while).
My hope for your son would be that the police will take this information into account, and will redirect their investigation back towards this possible alternative motive for the girl to have lied.
Your knowledge of even the most intimate details of your sons relationship with this girl will be for naught should it reach trial. The rape shield statues WILL preclude such information.
The one anonymous poster was correct in tat it cannot be a defense fro your son. Of course, that is not how I intended to suggest that it be used.
From what I've seen, defense attorneys prefer to deal with the prosecutors, as opposed to dealing with the police (probably why the one attorney suggested waiting until he was charged, I'd wager).
And while the investigation can be continued under the prosecutors auspice even after charges have been filed and referred to the prosecution, not only is their no guarantee of any further investigation being conducted, but once charges are files your son can be arrested, his name published, and you’ll likely have to bail him out of jail (something I feel our “wait for him to be charged first” advisors here have overlooked).
I know from what my wife informs me of that defense attorneys will frequently bring “new” evidence to prosecutors and ask that they investigate – in the hopes of altering the course of the case; and I do know of such evidence and subsequent investigations which have lead to cases being dismissed. So, I’m not claiming that if you (or your attorney) don’t go directly to the police that all hope is lost. I’m simply trying to spare your son the humiliate and damage of being arrested and charged, in a situation where the what you’ll told us suggests to me that the police investigation could well result in her recantation prior to charges being filed, and he being arrested.
Hopefully this will make my position clearer that my previous posts seemed to have.
Geez! Please excuse the misspellings. I blame the late hour and the wine.
Everybody, slwerner's wife is a fucking rape prosecutor. Pay absolutely no attention to anything he says about anything. You will get nothing but BS out of him.
Get a lawyer -- a real lawyer. Do not assume that anybody's bullshit claims about what the rape shield laws do or don't exclude are true. It is VERY unlikely that evidence of a prior relationship would be completely excluded.
I repeat: GET A REAL LAWYER, and direct any legal questions directly to that lawyer. Do NOT believe anything else that you hear, especially on the internet, and especially from anybody claiming to have info from a prosecutor.
Guess what? PROSECUTORS LIE!
Anon,
slwerners advice is actually very practical and wise. If you have a disagreement with something that has been suggested, please, feel free to give the facts that contradict it. But simply using his wife's job as a reason isn't very productive. If she is the person recommending these steps, don't you think that there may be some merit to them?
Cristina,
This girl is a very needy person and would call my son several times a day.
I will assume this was to a cell phone? I would also recommend getting copies of the phone records that show incoming and outgoing calls, and providing that information to investigators as well. If the majority of the calls are from her to your son, instead of the other way around, that also would go toward showing the ongoing relationship.
All the best,
E. Steven Berkimer
You do NOT give anything to investigators. The only purpose to doing that is helping them to screw you in court. You give everything to your LAWYER, and only if he thinks it's a good idea.
ANYONE who says otherwise is either giving you enough rope to hang your son or just ignorant of this process. But fortunately some of us have actually been there and have gone to court successfully.
And yes, everybody who is a prosecutor is the bad guy. Better to learn that now than later. If the police do take your side it will be because they have come to a conclusion on their own, not because of any information that you provide. Everything that you say to them will just be dismissed.
Today is day 21 since the police searched my son's bedroom and went away with his bed sheet and a pair of shorts. So far we have not heard anything more from the police department, who have never spoken with my son, nor the DA's office. I really appreciate all of your comments and suggestions. Today I spoke over the phone with an attorney from a very prominent firm, and my son and I will meet with him tomorrow. I am hearing a lot of different things from this blog and from local people with whom I've spoken. On the one hand, it may be good for the attorney to help direct the prosector's investigation to ward off any charges from arising, on the other, talking with the prosecution may be fanning the fire. I'm also hearing that cell phone, text message records, etc. are good to establish that there was indeed a relationship, the rape shield laws prevent this information from being admissible. I will keep you posted of the progress of this incident and hopefully it will all blow over soon.
Good plan -- you should always consult with the lawyer first before doing anything. One more piece of advice: be mentally prepared for the worst, but don't sink into despair. If the truth is on your side then he has a good shot at victory.
Anonymous (still?) - "It is VERY unlikely that evidence of a prior relationship would be completely excluded."
(Part I)
Obviously, you don't understand how the rape shield statutes have come to be (mis)used in a court of law.
Given that the prior (and on-going) relationship was of a sexual nature, it is a virtual certainty that IT will be excluded, as it will be argued that any evidence of the accusers sexual history would taint the judgment of jurors as to the events of the incident in question. Such evidence in routinely disallowed, despite often being otherwise highly exculpatory.
For instance, it can be argued that if two people have a sexual history together, but after one given sexual encounter, the women claims that, on that particular occasion, she had not want to have sex, but he forced her, it constitutes rape - yet, if the jurors knew of the sexual history prior to the alleged rape, they would tend to believe that there was some sort of on-going consent to sex, and that would ultimately cloud their judgement.
Now, the exclusion of such prior history would be wholly appropriate in a case where the man DID force her to have sex against her will.
Yet, as one can also easily imagine, in a case where, for instance, the woman simply became mad at the man after their sexual encounter, and decided to use that sexual encounter to file a rape claim in revenge, the same logic applied ends up protecting not a victim, but a lie instead.
This is the peril of the rape shield statues - what is just in one instance is unjust in another, yet the statute will be uniformly applied to all cases, simply because in would be inappropriate for the presiding judge to attempt to determine if the accuser is lying or not.
This is why it will always be best if investigators know about the accusers sexual history. While it CANNOT be used in a court of law, they can, and do, use such information to steer their investigations (despite what odd, nervous little men in tinfoil hats may think of them).
Consider this:
One of the biggest gripes of the gender feminists is that so few rape claims ultimately end up in convictions.
Now, why do you suppose that is?
This happens because, all along the way, "truth filters" ARE being applied.
First off, significant proportion of rape claims NEVER GET PAST THE INVESTIGATORY PHASE.
Study after study (of police investigations) demonstrate that the police determine large percentage of rape claims to be unfounded. That's right, "anonymous", the POLICE find the claims unfounded. They either find holes in the accounts, and end up getting a recantation of the claims, or they find no supporting evidence to support referring charges to the prosecutors to file with the courts.
Secondly, in the course of reviewing or performing further investigations, prosecutors themselves determine that either there isn't enough evidence to hope for a conviction or that that the accuser is lying. [as an aside for the anonymous poster, my wife once had an accuser recant her rape claim during pretrial conference]. Another significant of rape claims are dismissed (outright) prior to trial.
(Part II)
In other cases, the prosecutor determines that while an unwanted sexual situation may have occurred, the circumstances under which it happened simply do not warrant the severity of the charges that have been filed. In such cases, plea bargains are typically struck, in which the defendant pleads guilty to some lesser charge.
And, finally, the juries in rape trials apply another "truth filter". The rate of rape convictions at trial is actually significantly lower than what is seen for other crimes.
On reason is that (often due to due to influences beyond their control) prosecutors take too many "he said, she said" case to trial. As is often the case, juries don't buy that consent to sex wasn't clearly denied, and they determine that they cannot find the defendant guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
In the end, so many of the multitude of rape claims made end up leading to convictions for rape that the man-hating radical gender feminists are constantly up in arms demanding that the playing field be unleveled so as to achieve their stated goal of more (many, many more) rape convictions.
This is where the rape shield statutes come into play. They are perhaps the most insidious of all unleveling efforts ever made. under the guise of protecting women from being unfairly shamed, and their pasts used to portray them as sluts, "as willing as they were raped", they now tie the hands of the courts. Judges MUST follow them to the letter. Prosecutors can argue that they be extended in some circumstances (which judges are loath to deny). And even in cases where prosecutors do not feel they are appropriate, even their hands are tied. They must follow the law, and they must follow court orders & rulings.
Now, to get this back to the point where we got off on this tangent, because these rape statutes exist, and good evidence will end up being ignored, there is a certain logic to not having a case (in which the accused is innocent) wind up in the court room (even though the conviction rate is low).
And, despite anyones rantings, that fact remains that the police investigators routinely determine rape claims to be unfounded. Thus, it should be self-evident that they can be (in the vast majority of cases) trusted to do the right thing - and their doing so will likely be enhanced by their being provided will the best evidence available (which, of course, would include evidence as to why an individual would have a reason to be lying).
Now, I'll leave it to who ever can show why any of this is unwise or untrue to do so.
I appreciate everyone who has given advice. We need to be careful on this blog because we do deal with legal issues, and we don't want our advice to be conssrued as legal advice. So here is the official legal/non-legal advice of this blog for this and for every similar case: you need to find the best criminal attorney, preferably one with a lot of sexual assault trial experience, you can find. Period. Before you talk to police or even the girl again. Don't try to cut costs. It's the most important investment you can ever make. I know this is not advice that most people want to hear, but trust me -- as someone who's been in the trenches for more than 25 years since graduating law school -- it is the only prudent advice we can give. No one can properly evaluate your case without a possibly in depth interview. I'd also need to see the demeanor (and the age) of my client.
I'd like to know if he's participated in any PRETEXT CALLS -- oh, yes, mother -- your son needs to be extremely careful of all these things. http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2009/02/womens-groups-work-with-law-enforement.html (That's just a warning -- I've seen those calls make all the difference in whether they are allowed to charge men accused of rape.) Be careful of that.
And if your attorney is competent and knowledgeable in his or her field, YOU NEED TO TRUST HIM OR HER. Seriously. Don't be second-guessing everything they suggest without a basis for doing so. Don't be rushing out asking neighbors -- or people on the internet (with all due respect to our commentators here) if the attorney's advice is prudent.
A friend of mine, who is a fantastic criminal attorney, was counsel for a man wrongly convicted and imprisoned for many, many years. My friend help free him using DNA evidence. When I mentioned to my friend that if I'm ever arrested, I'm calling him, he said, "No, Pierce, if you're ever arrested, I'm getting you somebody good." Lesson: get the best available.
Pierce Harlan
Seriously -- read this over, and over, and over -- to show you how dangerous it is to do anything without an attorney: Women's groups work with law enforement to 'trick' men accused of rape into confessing: A serious problem for men falsely accused
"In the end, so many of the multitude of rape claims made end up leading to convictions for rape"
Should read:
In the end, so many of the multitude of rape claims made end up not leading to convictions for rape
Here's a basic question: When the police begin their investigation shouldn't they at some point interview the alleged rapist before charges are made? Or is it more typical to charge first and then interview the alleged rapist? I'm trying to determine whether it is odd after 17 days that no one has spoken with my son. I also want to mention that the information given on the search warrant for probable cause was completely false. Does this mean that I could make up some story about you which in turn will lead the police to search your home for evidence?
Cristina, any number of possible scenarios might have occurred. This being an acquaintance rape claim, it is perplexing what testing they might be waiting for. Who knows what she might have told police. Who knows what her medical exam might have revealed -- perhaps nothing. See my last comment re: pretext calls. Very important.
Put your trust in the hands of your new counsel. The one thing I hate more than anything else that clients do is when they call me and tell me that they've been getting "advice" from other people about the subject matter of my representation. Don't be second-guessing your counsel that without sound basis. Let him do his job.
Pierce Harlan - "Don't try to cut costs. It's the most important investment you can ever make. I know this is not advice that most people want to hear, but trust me -- as someone who's been in the trenches for more than 25 years since graduating law school -- it is the only prudent advice we can give. No one can properly evaluate your case without a possibly in depth interview. I'd also need to see the demeanor (and the age) of my client."
Pierce,
I am convinced that getting a good attorney is the best overall course to take.
But, my primary concern for Cristina's son was not about hiring an attorney vs. going it alone, but rather with getting pertinent evidence to the investigators.
Now, perhaps, "by any means possible" isn't prudent advice to have given; yet, I would still argue that it would be best if the police DID have the information which demonstrates a long-running sexual relationship which the girl was trying to hide.
In order to get the police to consider that she might be lying, I would think it best to show them why it is that she would have had a motive to lie.
Unlike the anonymous poster, I believe that in this case, a pro-active approach aimed at steering the investigation would be more advisable that merely hoping that the police will eventually discover the same evidence and motivation on their own.
The problem is that they don't even know to be looking for it.
From what Cristina has told us, it seems likely that her son did have (consensual) sex with the girl, and that her DNA is going to be found on his sheets (and possibly his DNA on her person).
Once the police can know for certain that sex did occur, absent knowledge as to why the girl would lie that it was not consensual, it would make sense (from their perspective) to use such means as pretext calls to try to incriminate him (Cristina and her son should definitely read your piece on them).
So, why not give them a good reason to take the investigation in a different direction - to verify the on-going relationship, and challenge her about it.
Without such information, as far as they know, they are dealing with a simple "he-said, she-said" disagreement as to consent - not a bald-faced lie on her part to cover-up the fact that she was cheating on another young man, and hiding a sexual relationship from her parents.
I'd agree that you are certainly correct that her lawyer should be the one bringing it up. I'd just think it would be best brought to the attention of the police investigators prior to their filing charges - or even using pretext calls to try to use as a basis for those charges.
While her son's chances still remain favorable in a trial setting, the fact that the rape shield statutes will come into play (have you ever considered doing an in-depth explanation of them?), the exculpatory value of the evidence of their prior relationship will become of no value to his defense.
At least, that's how I see it.
And, if at all possible, I'd like to see the whole matter headed-off earlier on, before he is made to suffer the humiliation of being arrested, brought before the court to be charged, having his name potentially dragged through he mud, and necessitating that his mother provide bond for his release for jail (or even his being held until trial).
Again, just my opinion here.
"I'd agree that you are certainly correct that her lawyer should be the one bringing it up. I'd just think it would be best brought to the attention of the police investigators prior to their filing charges - or even using pretext calls to try to use as a basis for those charges."
I think Critina would be wise to suggest these matters to her attorney -- and let him make the final call. It certainly helps counsel to have an informed, intelligent client. Your attorney may be aware of something, or may notice something, that might necessitate a different course -- something we can't see on the cold, lifeless computer screen of a blog comment thread. As good as our advice might be in general, specific cases sometimes present peculiar problems we are not in a position to anticipate.
Cristina - "Here's a basic question: When the police begin their investigation shouldn't they at some point interview the alleged rapist before charges are made? Or is it more typical to charge first and then interview the alleged rapist? I'm trying to determine whether it is odd after 17 days that no one has spoken with my son."
My guess (yes, my detractor(s) I said guess), would be that they are waiting for DNA results to come back from the lab. your sons case isn't like to be high profile, and would thus not be expedited at the lab due to higher costs of doing so. One month is not unusual for DNA results. [for the anonymous poster, my supposedly evil wife often waits that long for DNA results]
Again, GUESSING, but if they do get "positive" DNA, allowing them to clearly establish that she was there and that sex occurred (supporting the story the girl has likely told), then their investigation will hone-in on trying to gain evidence that your son forced the sex on her. They might call him in for questioning (your lawyer should definitely be there), or, as is Pierce's concern, they may attempt to use pretext calls.
And, it is just my own opinion (certainly not legal advice), unless your lawyer tells you why the police should not know that your son was having a long-running sexual relationship with this girl, I still think that your son's interests would be better served in the police DID have a solid reason to consider that she might be lying (that whole wanting to cover-up her relationship with your son).
Personally, I'm not sure what downside there might be to them having such information. They already know that she was at your home. They'll likely have evidence of the sex. the gaps that need to be filled in (for them) are why she was their, and why she would be claiming that the sex was not consensual.
Again, my concern is that, if you don't bring it up with them, they'll never even consider the possibility.
Can anyone articulate just what the downside to informing the police might be [aside from the stuff about the police only ever intending to railroad innocent people, that some people seem to believe so very dearly in]
Can anyone articulate just what the downside to informing the police might be . . . ."
slwerner, this is likely what a good attorney will suggest. But it has to be up to the attorney to make that call. The problem I am having is this -- and I say this from many years experience: in all likelihood we do not know the whole story, and there may be traps the young man needs to be wary of. (As but one of a thousand examples, is there some other evidence that would prove the long-term relationship that needs to be secured before the boy blows the lid off it?) All of this has got to be up to their attorney to make that call. He will want to interview them at some length and likely do other investigation as well. But any communication with the police needs to be carefully thought out -- and ought to occur only with an attorney present. Certainly, tell the truth, but often clients will furnish statements that are incomplete -- statements that leave out important details, for example. What happens when, at trial, the boy wants to add details to the earlier incomplete statement? Now he has to "explain" why he left them out. The more "explaining" a client has to do, often the more dishonest he appears.
I certainly agree that your advice appears to be sound, but there may be a host of things we simply haven't considered because all we have a short narrative on a comment thread. It's dangerous to deal with problems in the abstract. I could preface advice here by saying: "Assuming you have related all the pertinent facts . . . ." And if this were a different kind of legal matter I would do just that. But I won't do that for something this important -- because long experience has taught me that I need to hear the whole story; I need to see my client's demeanor; I need to consider every fact that might possibly send him away for decades. It would be arrogant, and foolhardly, of me to proceed otherwise.
And you know what they say about someone who acts as his own attorney . . . .
Post a Comment