Should A Victim Be Jailed And Forced To Testify Against Her Rapist?
Alyssa Newcomb writes on ABCnews.com that a 17-year-old alleged rape victim is being held in juvenile detention to ensure that she'll testify at her alleged rapist's trial on April 23 -- previously rescheduled after she failed to appear at his February 28 trial:
"The last thing we ever want to do is put a victim or a witness in custody, but when you have serious crimes of violence and a multiple offenses, you have to balance the protection of the community here," Sacramento County Assistant District Attorney Albert Locher told ABCNews.com.
A judge signed off on the teen, who is reportedly in the state's foster system and has a history of running away, being held on a material witness warrant on March 14. She appeared before a judge on March 27 and has been in custody ever since, the Sacramento Bee reported....Locher said the girl's testimony was imperative and cited the potential public safety issue if Rackley is let go on the charges.
Where do you draw the line? Where should we?
via ifeminists
Though it seems strange, it seems like a very old element of law going back to 1789
Material witness
A material witness (in US law) is a person with information alleged to be material concerning a criminal proceeding. The authority to detain material witnesses dates to the First Judiciary Act of 1789, but the Bail Reform Act of 1984 most recently amended the text of the statute, and it is now codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3144. The most recent version allows material witnesses to be held to ensure the giving of their testimony in criminal proceedings or to a grand jury.
...
18 U.S.C. § 3144, commonly referred to as the "material witness statute," provides as follows:
If it appears from an affidavit filed by a party that the testimony of a person is material in a criminal proceeding, and if it is shown that it may become impracticable to secure the presence of the person by subpoena, a judicial officer may order the arrest of the person and treat the person in accordance with the provisions of section 3142 of this title. No material witness may be detained because of inability to comply with any condition of release if the testimony of such witness can adequately be secured by deposition, and if further detention is not necessary to prevent a failure of justice. Release of a material witness may be delayed for a reasonable period of time until the deposition of the witness can be taken pursuant to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
jerry at April 13, 2012 12:52 AM
People should follow through on accusations, or have their retractions recorded with the same vehemence.
This is part of the OJ Simpson thing. There's nothing as pathetic as a violently-arguing couple who insists on involving the rest of the community in their foreplay.
I had these next-door neighbors from a distant part of the world. Their response to any conflict, even a paperboy who accidentally threw the LA Times in a flower pot, was to threaten to call the cops.
That was their understanding of American paradise. The constabulary power from their childhood, Village Big Man and his enormous but not-to-bright nephew, was now manifest as the LAPD, whose violence they imagined to have been paid for in their property taxes.
It was kind of silly. They didn't understand that in America, the cop's first question would be "What happened?", and that they'd have to give a satisfactory answer before his powers would be deployed.
It was like living next to seven-year-olds.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at April 13, 2012 1:32 AM
Can't they expedite the process or something? To hold a rape victim like this, as if she were a criminal, is just wicked. Yes, the man must be put away to make sure he doesn't do it to someone else, but to do this to his victim? This is horrible.
Jim S. at April 13, 2012 5:25 AM
To hold a rape victim like this, as if she were a criminal, is just wicked. Yes, the man must be put away
Hey, Jim gets it! Who even needs a trial? The male's clearly guilty, 'cause women never lie about rape!
dee nile at April 13, 2012 5:49 AM
Did the girl herself accuse him? I can't tell from the article. I want to say that if she accused him, I don't feel bad that they're forcing her to follow through.
Rape is a life-wrecking charge. Also, his arrest, detention, etc., has cost the taxpayers money.
Insufficient Poison at April 13, 2012 6:39 AM
That's a tough call. In my city, we recently had a case where a man was a victim of the "knockout game" and was found beaten and bleeding on the sidewalk by the city's mayor and his bodyguard. They stopped to help the man and the assailants ran away before the police could come. The one witness willing to testify was a teenaged girl who went to school with, and lived in the neighborhood with, all the assailants. She was missing the morning of the trial but the prosecutor decided to go forward anyway and hope she showed up. She didn't. All the assailants were dismissed from the case and proceeded to celebrate in the halls of the courtroom, then go home and crow (on Facebook) about how they'd successfully intimidated the girl into not appearing to testify. (Two of the assailant's mothers did the same on their Facebook pages as well.)
Seems to me that if the cops had kept the girl in protective custody for a week or two before trial, all those idiot dirtbags would have been convicted. Now she's a victim, too, and they're still out on the street.
Oh yeah, forgot to mention that two of them came across the knockout game victim a few days after the abortion of justice - and taunted him on the same sidewalk he'd been assaulted on before.
That's not really the kind of society I want to live in.
Jennifer at April 13, 2012 6:46 AM
> Can't they expedite the process or something?
Why should they? It's not like "a speedy trial" is a right mentioned in the Constitution.
#oh_wait
TJIC at April 13, 2012 7:14 AM
This is hard. I rather detest women who won't testify against their rapists-or for that matter anyone who won't help put a criminal behind bars by testifying. I don't want rapists walking around me and my daughters that could have been jailed but weren't. As citizens we all have a responsibility to protect society when we can. But jailing a victim.....tough call.
momof4 at April 13, 2012 7:35 AM
Jennifer if your story is true the guys crowing on facebook would have been arrested and charged with obstrution of justice, witness tampering, and had the assult charges re filed against them
lujlp at April 13, 2012 9:41 AM
When you look at the stigma attached to a rape victim, you're looking at a serious problem. Part of the reason that sex is more important than murder in the USA is that when a murder happens, one of the parties is gone. For sex-related crimes, the assailant and victim are both still around. I don't know anybody who thinks that's good.
Radwaste at April 13, 2012 9:42 AM
She obviously is a troubled young lady. Her present already in the hands of our foster system, and her past represented as a history of running away. I'm not sure that holding her in a juvenile detention center is going to be much worse for her than whatever she's already experienced at the hands of her biological parents and/or the foster care system.
Rape charges have previously been dropped on this particular accused rapist. The DA is looking at a probable serial rapist and thinking about his wife/daughter/female relatives. There is physical evidence against him, but probably not damaging enough to put him away without this troubled girl's testimony. He's not only wanting justice, but also in hopes of preventing a future crime.
I don't see holding her as that big of an issue. We'd do the same to any other witness not likely to show up. Not to mention, the need to respect the rights of the accused to face his accuser.
Cat at April 13, 2012 10:06 AM
She's being jailed to force her to appear and *encourage* her to testify. According to the April 7 Sacramento Bee, she can't be forced to actually testify in this case.
I think that makes this even worse.
The judge, Lawrence G. Brown, who jailed this witness, and the prosecutor who requested the jailing should be recalled at once.
larry at April 13, 2012 11:25 AM
I have no problem with holding her in a custody situation like a fenced Club Fed; but if she is in with the general population that is a different animal.
I.e. she has a home/apartment/motel like setting that she is not allowed to leave. Holding her in isolation, caged or barracks setting I would find unacceptable.
There is a difference.
Jim P. at April 13, 2012 8:51 PM
Right, cause a gilded cage isnt REALLY a cage
lujlp at April 14, 2012 2:42 PM
I know it isn't a good solution, but if you read the article, it sounds like you have scared 17 year old facing off against a probable serial rapist. Normally I'm against giving up civil liberties, but in this case it is a narrow finding for the good of the community.
Jim P. at April 14, 2012 4:27 PM
I have no philisophical problem ith the ends justifying the means - I just get sicki of the hypocracy of those who do, except for when the dont
lujlp at April 15, 2012 6:43 AM
Leave a comment