The St Paul's prep school rape case has gotten a lot of coverage, partly 'cause the school is very tony, partly 'cause the defendant is a good looking teenager of good family, partly 'cause the media is on a school rape kick.
The facts of the case seem to be, the defendant (Owen Labrie) is accused of raping the un named accuser. There are no other witnesses or evidence, so it gets down to a he-said she-said case. In real life, the charge ought be simply rape.
In lawyer life, they rummaged thru all the lawbooks and found a barrel of things to charge in addition to rape. They managed to charge the defendant with felony sexual assault, statutory sexual assault, and "using a computer to seduce a minor". The jury waffled and acquitted some charges and convicted on others.
Fair and honest would have been a single charge of rape, and let the jury decide who to believe, he or she. Either acquit or convict. As it is, they get away with a waffle.
In fact, I think courts would be fairer if the prosecution was allowed only one charge. Arrest a perp for doing something. Figure out which law he/she broke and prosecute on that one. If the criminal action could be a violation of more than one law fine, pick one, just one, and go with it. Slapping half a dozen charges on the perp for one criminal action is welfare for lawyers and unfair to the defendant. For instance, arrest a guy for sticking up a liquor store. They can charge him with armed robbery, but they cannot also charge him with unlawful possession of a firearm. One charge is enough.
No comments:
Post a Comment