If the episode of American Justice I just watched is to be believed, these are the facts in a case where a teenage boy is charged with two counts of rape.

In a small, wealthy town in Connecticut, rumor has it that a young troublemaker named Alex is a date-rapist.  In spite of this, he remains one of the most popular boys in high school.  Charming, good-looking, and athletic, Alex is the star of the wrestling team, and on weekends, can always be found at one of the rotating house parties that the parents of the community seem to condone, in spite of it being well known that these parties are unchaparoned havens for drug and alcohol indulgence by minors.

In spite of [or perhaps because of?] his reputation as a date-rapist, a girl from Alex's high school asks for, and receives, a ride home late at night from one such party.  Shortly thereafter, Alex's dad gets a phone call from the girl's dad.  "Control your son!" demands the upset father. "He just raped my daughter!"  Waking and confronting his son with this accusation, young Alex manages to calm his dad down.  "Relax, dad. We had sex.  No big deal.  Go back to bed."  Alex's dad does just that.

Meanwhile, unsatisfied by this response, the girl's dad calls police, who arrest and interogate Alex.  Since Alex steadfastly denies the charges, and since the girl needs more time to decide if she wants to pursue the case to a "he-said; she-said" trial (no physical evidence of rape was found), Alex is released.  

FOUR DAYS LATER, at another party, another girl needs another ride home, and accepts a ride from none other than the now most famous alleged date-rapist in the entire small town.  And she too accuses Alex of raping her.  Police pounce, angry that they had let him go so easily the first time.  This time, Alex is charged.  His parents have no trouble covering the high bail, as well as hiring a high priced lawyer.  Good thing, too, because NOW, the first girl also has decided to pile on, demanding that charges be filed in her case as well.  

Over the Defense attorney's strongest objections, the court decides to "save time and money" by trying both cases together, in one trial, with one jury----a jury of SIX (also, presumably a cost-cutting measure).  The defense attorney feels it is his duty to inform his client that he cannot expect a fair trial under these conditions.  Alex, taking this under advisement, consults with his family, and decides to forfiet the bail, and embark on an extended European Vacation.  By all accounts, Alex had a good time while on vacation.

Meanwhile, back in Connecticut, the Supreme Court bitch-slaps the original court:  Hell no, you can't try two separate rape cases with one trial!  Alex voluntarily returns home, looking forward to getting a fair trial and being cleared of all charges.  With the support of his parents, and his long-time girlfriend by his side, the first trial begins.  

The accuser insists, under oath, that she had no opportunity to flee from the Jeep SUV in which the rape took place, because from the moment the attack began, Alex the Evil Rapist held her by the throat with one hand at all times.  Even while using his other hand to fold down the back seat of the SUV.  But it turns out, that that can't be done with only one hand.  At least one member of the jury is troubled by this lie.  Hung Jury.  Retrial.

At the retrial, the accuser is allowed to change her story, and say that he let go of her throat while folding down the rear seat.  (Still offering no explaination as to why, for the sake of jesus H. christ on rollerblades did she not, er, decide to LEAVE during that time.)  Still, the jury reaches a unanamous (6-person) verdict:  Guilty.

Which means that at the NEXT trial, all the prosecution had to do was prosecute an already convicted rapist of committing the same crime against a similar victim 4 days later, using the same MO.   No word on the details of that trial, but presumably, the accuser pointed at the convicted rapist, cried a little, lawyers on both sides just shrugged their shoulders, and the jury convicted on the spot, without feeling any need to leave the courtroom to deliberate.

Meanwhile, young Alex, struck down by rape accusations in the prime of his life, must suffer the same cruelly ironic fate as would any innocent man convicted of rape:  serving the maximum sentence possible, since no remorse = no parole.  And since there was no physical evidence, no one from The Innocence Project will be riding in on a white horse to prove that Alex is factually innocent of the crime for which he must wallow in prison.

The moral, if any, is if a young lady is ever in need of a ride home, FOR GOD'S SAKES MAN!  DON'T GIVE IT TO HER!!!!

[TakeMeGrl]

Hm. Well...I'd hesitate to paint him innocent, either.

I'd think that a normal boy, one who's not a rapist, would be a little more alarmed upon being awakened in the middle of the night by allegations that he'd forced a girl.

I'd also think that a normal boy, one who's not a rapist and who knows that he's being looked at for a previous rape, would try to avoid being alone with another young girl mere days later, much less having any form of sexual contact with her when it could be used against him.

I feel like I know this story, though...I'm pretty sure I've watched one of those movie-of-the-week types about it.  Or else a very similar story, anyway.

Well, in the case, the law always say innocent until prven guilty.

As there are so much in doubt here, I believe he should be given a non guilty verdict. However, the above is not always applied. A lot is not said. As such, a lot is not known. Maybe there is more to the story then we know.

[TakeMeGrl]

Yeah...we certainly can't pretend to know all of the details from just a summary.

In cases like this, the jury should always consider the possibility of getting it wrong, whether it is more serious to convict and innocent compared to freeing the guilty. For me the former is more serious, but of course it is up to ech of us to give our opinion

In cases like this, the jury should always consider the possibility of getting it wrong, whether it is more serious to convict and innocent compared to freeing the guilty. For me the former is more serious, but of course it is up to ech of us to give our opinion

I agree, and so does several hundred years of jurisprudence and common law.
That's why it (usually) takes 12 jurors to agree for a conviction, but only one to prevent a conviction.
--Ray

Yeah...we certainly can't pretend to know all of the details from just a summary.

I believe we will not know all the detail even if we were to witness the trial first hand. That's why in trials, jurors are kept from outside influence and all their information should be based 100% on what is going on in the court.

Hm. Well...I'd hesitate to paint him innocent, either.
I'd also think that a normal boy, one who's not a rapist and who knows that he's being looked at for a previous rape, would try to avoid being alone with another young girl mere days later, much less having any form of sexual contact with her when it could be used against him.

Yes, but if this is true, then what about the flip-side of the coin?
Small High School, in a small town.  EVERYONE had heard the rumors that he was a date-rapist.  
Does a girl getting into a car alone with him at night, on the way home from a party, bear SOME responsibility for whatever took place?
And then, AND THEN, Just 4 days later, when everyone has also heard that he's an accused rapist, who's been interogated by police on the matter,
does a girl, getting into a car alone with him at night, on the way home from a party, bear STILL MORE responsibility for whatever took place?

ALSO, mix in the fact that this town is SOOOOOOO boring, that parents and police ALLOW the teens to indulge in drugs and alcohol at unchaparoned parties, is it completely out of the question that one (or both) of these girls conciously decided that they'd like to see what it would be like to be raped by a rich, good-looking, jock, and then, afterward, decided that rape wasn't as much fun as they thought it might be? 'm just askin'......

--Ray

[Lois]

Yes he's guilty!  Now let him out so I can go on a date with him.  And I'd better be satisfied! 

[prey4me]

So many problems.  Although the kid is spoiled scum-bag brat, I'd have trouble voting to convict based on the fact pattern presented!

(Alleged) Victim #1 was allowed to change her testimony?  There's an appeal right there--not to mention the trial judge's first decision to combine the cases.  That would have been done only with the consent of both prosecution and defence.  And never as a cost-cutting measure.

Jury of 6?   HUH??  Rape is a fellony!  You need a 12-person jury.  Jury of 6 is for misdemeanors, and not for economy of scale.

No evidence of penetration?  There had better been good corroborative evidence.  

There's no mention of torn clothing, wounds, or brusing.  It doesn't take much to put a bruise on the throat.  

I don't think there's "proof beyond a reasonable doubt," although the kid is obviously a work of shit.

LAST:  The girls who took rides with him?  Well, the "charming scoundrel" is a valid archtype.  Criminals often are.  They exert a certain power over females.  It's powerful and illogical.  A "nice" example:  Bill Clinton.  A very evil example:  Charles Manson.

VERY LAST:  Ideas for screen- and tele-plays are commonly combined from different sources, and various cases.  Then they have to be condensed down to 40 minutes' production.  So they are not realistically derived from actual events.  Example:  "The Exorcist," which was "based on a true story."  Well, yes and no.  The girl's story was true.  But the author brought in very extreme stories of demonic possession, from various locals and periods of time.  Many of them had not been fully authenticated. Then he combined all these stories and anecdotes, and crammed them into one story about one case.

So many problems.  Although the kid is spoiled scum-bag brat, I'd have trouble voting to convict based on the fact pattern presented!

(Alleged) Victim #1 was allowed to change her testimony?  There's an appeal right there--

Well, the initial police report---from 8 years prior----backed up her changed testimony (but did not explain why she chose to change it in the  1st place)

not to mention the trial judge's first decision to combine the cases.

And that was ruled against before the trial began.  So all is fair there.

Jury of 6?   HUH??  Rape is a fellony!  You need a 12-person jury.  Jury of 6 is for misdemeanors, and not for economy of scale.

Actually, I have heard of several jurisdictions adopting this "fewer than 12" approach, which, apparently, is Constitutional (since the Constitution doesn't specify a number of peers to serve on a jury)

No evidence of penetration?  There had better been good corroborative evidence.  

Well, no evidence of FORCED penetration.  Both sides agree that penetration took place.

There's no mention of torn clothing, wounds, or brusing.  It doesn't take much to put a bruise on the throat.  

Both victims claim to have succumbed mostly to the THREAT of force.  

VERY LAST:  Ideas for screen- and tele-plays are commonly combined from different sources, and various cases.  Then they have to be condensed down to 40 minutes' production.  So they are not realistically derived from actual events.  Example:  "The Exorcist," which was "based on a true story."  Well, yes and no.  The girl's story was true.  But the author brought in very extreme stories of demonic possession, from various locals and periods of time.  Many of them had not been fully authenticated. Then he combined all these stories and anecdotes, and crammed them into one story about one case.

No no....this was a documentary.

---Ray.  (by the way, I agree on the "not guilty" verdict, just feel compelled to play devils' advocate to make sure that all is fair.)

[prey4me]

Also interesting that a kid with these financial and social resources got hit with two guilties!

The second trial should have been removed to a distant jurisdiction to protect the accused from the pre-trial publicity of the first conviction.

[TakeMeGrl]

VERY LAST:  Ideas for screen- and tele-plays are commonly combined from different sources, and various cases.  Then they have to be condensed down to 40 minutes' production.  So they are not realistically derived from actual events.  Example:  "The Exorcist," which was "based on a true story."  Well, yes and no.  The girl's story was true.  But the author brought in very extreme stories of demonic possession, from various locals and periods of time.  Many of them had not been fully authenticated. Then he combined all these stories and anecdotes, and crammed them into one story about one case.

Ah yes...I've heard of that being done before.  It's sort've what they did with Jaws...no single shark ever did all of that stuff, but most of its actions had been perpetrated by numerous other sharks throughout history.

Hm. Well...I'd hesitate to paint him innocent, either.
I'd also think that a normal boy, one who's not a rapist and who knows that he's being looked at for a previous rape, would try to avoid being alone with another young girl mere days later, much less having any form of sexual contact with her when it could be used against him.

Yes, but if this is true, then what about the flip-side of the coin?
Small High School, in a small town.  EVERYONE had heard the rumors that he was a date-rapist. 
Does a girl getting into a car alone with him at night, on the way home from a party, bear SOME responsibility for whatever took place?
And then, AND THEN, Just 4 days later, when everyone has also heard that he's an accused rapist, who's been interogated by police on the matter,
does a girl, getting into a car alone with him at night, on the way home from a party, bear STILL MORE responsibility for whatever took place?

ALSO, mix in the fact that this town is SOOOOOOO boring, that parents and police ALLOW the teens to indulge in drugs and alcohol at unchaparoned parties, is it completely out of the question that one (or both) of these girls conciously decided that they'd like to see what it would be like to be raped by a rich, good-looking, jock, and then, afterward, decided that rape wasn't as much fun as they thought it might be?  I'm just askin'......

--Ray

I'm definitely not saying they made smart decisions, but I'd also very much hesitate to assign them any responsibility for it.  If they actually were raped, then that comes dangerously close to blaming the victim, which I will not tolerate.  I understand the "innocent until proven guilty" thing, and believe that policy must be upheld, but I'm also leery of making assumptions about the character or motivations of the victims, as that's one of the frustrating ways that men who clearly did rape their victims get away with it.  Based on these facts, there's no way that we can postulate that these girls were just looking to try something daring and then later "decided that rape wasn't as much fun as they thought it would be".


Btw...I am making no claims either way about his innocence or guilt.  I just also like playing devil's advocate. 

From this, we cannot say for sure whether he is innocent or guilty. No matter which way for it, there is no real evidence. Now if you look at it from the perspective of innocent until proven guilty, then innocent as you cannot prove guilt. If you look at it as guilty until proven innocent, then guilty will be the verdict.

Yes, I will agree that he had been unwise to have offered another ride. Of course in another way you can argue that if he had not offered, it would have meant he is guilty as he is avoiding the circumstance again. Again, all depend on how you see or how you want to see it.

[corinthian]

As everyone's been saying there's really not enough info for us to make a decision but the way I see it is he's either guilty or innocent and totally retarded, in which case he should be locked up for his own safety!