posted
Dagonee, the second bit was directed at what Eljay said, not you. That was my bad for not being specific. I should have quoted her, but it was right above me when I posted, so I thought it was obvious I was responding to "We aregue, because that is what we do."
So the "I want to have my say about what other people have posted but then bitch about them trying to have their say about what I've posted" makes sense in the way you misread it. My bad. I have learned a lot from various discussions here, and I respect you. I know you have a deep faith in the law, and that's an asset for what you do. I apreciate your insight, really.
I was aying that a victim has to first let it be known she is a victim before the authorities can do anything. This happens a lot, unless they are arresting boys because a girl they went out with the night before has been crying a lot this morning.
quote: In practice, it IS the victim's call whether the police even get involved. Don't be naive.
What I meant was that it is naive to think that the authorities somehow magically know about crimes. I know at least three women who have been raped, who went through rape crisis counselling and all that without the police ever even knowing a crime occurred.
That's what I meant, not that people are never prosecuted without victim testimony. I don't know much about the law, but I DO know that people are sometimes prosecuted without witness/victim testimony.
If prosecution doesn't happen unless the authorities know about it, then the victim has to tell them about it. If the victim doesn't tell them about it, it doesn't usually happen, I'm guessing. I know it isn't impossible to prosecute a date rapist without the victim's help, but I've heard enough women talk about the rape crisis thing that I know they have to consent to the "rape kit" and so forth.
I don't think we're actually arguing, so I'm not being huffy. I was just saying that the first step in justice belongs to victim - either she tells or she doesn't. Is that safe to say?
I have been tired and a bit addled, so I'm sorry I came off as insulting you. I can see clearly that the naive comment offended you (the other did too, but it wasn't directed at you in the first place), and I'm sorry. It was never my intention to hurt anybody's feelings or be deliberately insulting.
I haope you can forgive me.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jin-Me I didn't say "it's a bad thing for people to discuss right and wrong abstractly", I said I'm tired of it, and it is why I don't like coming here as much anymore.
quote:to say that there's no point in so doing is not only a stretch, but demonstrably wrong
Okay, okay. This discussion no longer has any point FOR ME. As in, there is no point for me to continue, because it has nothing to offer me, personally. (I'm only in it now because I think I've made people angry, which I didn't mean to do.)
"Everyone saying it is wrong is saying it's important to recognize it as wrong precisely because it does feel so right. "
But after the eithtieth time, it becomes boring and repetative, is all. <----OPINION, for those who can't tell without handy notes
I just want to smoth things over, assure everyone that I didn't mean to hurt anyone's feelings and move on to something remotely enjoyable.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry it's been such a rough discussion for you Olivet. Honestly this is a part of hatrack I've missed terribly-- where people can go back and forth with respect and courtesy, even when emotions are riled and points are contentious. Threads like this and Enochville's are a part of Hatrack at it's best, for me.
Just to offer another point of view .
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Olivet, thank you for the explanation and the apology. I can now see your posts in a light other than the one I was seeing them in before. I'm sorry I misintepreted it.
A little more on prosecution against victim wishes, offered merely as information:
Date rape will seldom be prosecuted without the victim's willing participation. Sometimes victim's are subpoened against their will and still respond, even though almost no prosecutor would seek to sanctions if they refused. I would not consider that consent, but it does involve cooperation.
The only other scenarios I can think of are far-fetched but certainly possible. For example, the victim reports the crime, refuses to testify, but the defendant has confessed (probably as a form of bragging) either in front of multiple reliable witnesses or on tape. As of now, the victim's excited utterences to policy might get in (this may change very soon in a soon-to-be decided SCOTUS case). Or, an accomplice could plead guilty out of remorse and testify against the defendant. That would be very believable testimony.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jim- me I agree that both these threads have been good, but this one has gotten a bit hamster-wheelish for me.
I think it's because I sympathize with and understand all sides. In trying to help explain one side to the other I came off harsh without meaning to. My bad, yes. Maybe the last 20 post have been all about explaining the last few before that, and it's wearing to try to re-explain what you meant. Over and over. Because you were suffering from insomnia when you wrote them in the first place.
I was actually arguing from a point of trying to explain how I understood the opposing side, while agreeing that, you know, killing people is a bad thing. But that didn't come across, and offended a 'racker I truly, deeply respect (maybe more than one...) because I was careless. Kinda took the fun out of it for me.
The only thing really important to me about the rape issue is that victims realize they have the power to make their own decisions. Rape is a loss of power over your body, but victims still have choices. Kill the mofo and go to jail, work with prosecutors to see justice done, go to France and raise roses... whatever.
Edit : Dag: I am so relieved! I was sleep deprived an fully thinking I was being clear when I was actually being terse and sounding nasty.
I think I had heard of most of those scenarios. I also have heard that some places now arrest men for spousal abuse even if the spouse doesn't testify, if the cops and neighbors saw/heard enough. I think that's cool, because witness intimidation is a big part of domestic abuse crimes.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I also have heard that some places now arrest men for spousal abuse even if the spouse doesn't testify, if the cops and neighbors saw/heard enough. I think that's cool, because witness intimidation is a big part of domestic abuse crimes.
All the convictions I've won at trial (OK, only three ) for domestic assault and battery have been without victim testimony, and one was with the victim testifying for the defendant.
There's an unfortunate trend in some prosecutors officers to charge women who recant (not just refuse to testify) with filing a false police report, something I can understand but find to be ultimately counterproductive.
I don't have a problem with the idea that prosecutors can compel victims to testify - prosecutors represent more than the victim - but the power must be exercised extremely carefully.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: The only thing really important to me about the rape issue is that victims realize they have the power to make their own decisions. Rape is a loss of power over your body, but victims still have choices. Kill the mofo and go to jail, work with prosecutors to see justice done, go to France and raise roses... whatever.
Me too, which is why I answered Jeniwren and Orincoro the way I did .
As for the "offense" done, I wouldn't worry so much. We Jatraqueros are really much tougher than even we let ourselves think. Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Kinda took the fun out of it for me.
