This is pretty appalling. An Illinois woman is suing Waukegan radio station WXLC for being sexually assaulted on a "date" she won from one of their contests.
The station promoted Travis Harvey as a "great" and "kind" guy in their challenge, "Win a Date with Travis," which she ended up getting after being asked a series of questions by Harvey along with other contestants. So after being tested and judged as to whether she was an adequate "date" for the bachelor, Harvey invited her to his house on the night of their oh-so-special date where he drugged and raped her.
And this all happened despite the fact that Harvey had a record, which the station failed to find out:
Baizer [the rape survivor's attorney] said Harvey had previously been convicted twice of violating a domestic violence order of protection taken out by another woman. The radio station was negligent for not checking Harvey's record, and for promoting him as a safe--and desirable--date, the suit alleges.
To top it off, Harvey himself was only charged with criminal sexual abuse and is just serving probation for a measly year. (Since there was no physical evidence.) *Fuming*
h/t to Veronica.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Woman wins "A Date with Travis," then raped by Travis.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/10650
I am APPALLED.
Next thing we know, his probation will get cut short because her jeans were "tight" and there was no way they could have been taken off unless she had willingly removed them.
The 1 year of probation was a plea bargain. I'm not sure the deal inappropriate on the DA's part, either. It doesn't sound like he enough evidence to remove all reasonable doubts about what happened.
This lawsuit also sounds like a fairly reasonable one, and hopefully the woman can press a civil suit against Harvey, as well.
Does anyone know if someone at the radio station can be charged with criminal negligence or something like that? What a disgusting situation.
Wow, that is fucked up beyond words.
... wt ... f? Why was a radio station even having a "win a date with some totally random dude" contest in the first place? Wow, totally random sketchballs make such great "prizes."
hmm, this one seems kinda on the fence for me as far as whether the radio station should be punished- yeah it was shitty, but i don't see how it rises to negligence on their part. They basically ran a mini-speed date for a dude they found off the street. He seemed nice, and far as i can tell from the article, the station never promised he was "safe". I know, one would assume these things, but I'm trying to look at it from a cold legal view.
I don't see how this is any more their fault than if someone eharmony set you up with raped you. It's certainly the rapist's fault for being a rapist, but I can't see how the radio station had a duty to this woman just because they told her someone was "nice".
And of course, the poster of this comment is male.
LOL hadn't noticed that.
Actually, I'm a woman, thanks for asking. I'm a law student and I work in a domestic violence organization.
I didn't say it wasn't fucked up, I just said that I don't think they have legal standing. "Duty" is a legal element of negligence. Geez, if you would like to discuss it with me, I'm interested, I was just stating my opinion on the legal issue. *I* didn't write the laws. I just analyze them.
Of course?
Could you expand a bit?
I'm trying to tell if you're saying that men are pro-rape, or women can't learn law.
It was a sarcastic comment about how men can't as easily as women empathize and see the flaws in these situations. It was a simple comment - please don't over analyze it.
Now, "Evan" has told us she is female, anyway.
I figured it was a man considering the lack of "we shouldn't stand for this!" in the comment, instead it had an air of "oh well, she was raped, no fault of the radio station!" which to me implies it's the victim's fault in some way.
The radio station DEFINITELY is to blame here.
No amount of babble about law will change my opinion on that!
No need to scare quote my handle, my name is actually Evann, and I am quite certainly a lady. I will even do my secret vagina handshake to prove it!
I wasn't being unsympathetic or saying "oh well", I was analyzing the situation from a legal point of view- which as a future lawyer, is what i'm trained to do. Unfortunately in the cold eyes of the law (and as my work representing domestic violence victims has shown) it doesn't matter how outraged you are about something, or how morally right you are- if it's not in the law, you won't be compensated. I'm sorry I didn't come off as indignant as people would prefer, I just zoomed in on what was a pretty interesting, but sad, legal issue.
Yes, it's very fucked up and unethical that the radio station didn't do a simple check that guy's background. My whole point is that I don't think she will be able to punish the radio station criminally. Don't kill the messenger!!
and I specifically said "it's the rapist's fault for being a rapist" and "I'm trying to look at it from a cold legal view" so... stop hating!
Well it's not exactly helpful to make stupid assumptions about someone's identity instead of disagreeing with their argument.
I think Evann made a very good point, which doesn't detract from the suffering of the victim, nor does it blame the victim, given that Evann explicitly stated "It's certainly the rapist's fault for being a rapist".
There are many ways of meeting people or having dates arranged, and it is not always possible to know whether someone has a criminal conviction or not. Not to mention most rapists are never convicted. What if this man had never been convicted? Nobody could have known.
The case might discourage radio stations from arranging dates or mean that in future they will check criminal records, but in the end the truly responsible party is the rapist. What's appalling about this case is the lightness of his sentence.
Men can't empathize as easily as women? That's a pretty sweeping statement... I don't know if I'd be comfortable with that.
I think she was trying to say that all rape survivors are women.
But whatever, Jennifer and Bill Diamond are both trolls.
Why do you say that about me? Don't agree with my comments and arguments? Or is it one of those "I feel you're a troll therefore don't belittle my feelings" feeling?
You wrote "If there's anyone that should be liable it is her for criminal stupidity. Sadly, lacking personal responsibility is not a crime," and then you ask why I call you a troll?
If it makes you feel better, after reading more of your comments I have decided that you are not a troll but rather a very emotionally damaged man. I was confused because your negative feelings toward women cause you to go on the internet to pick arguments with feminists. I have a bad habit of calling everyone who comes on to pick arguments rather than make constructive comments a troll. I apologize for the misunderstanding.
An "emotionally damaged man"? Are you serious? That is crossing the line! You have no idea what his past emotional history is like.
Fine, he's a troll then.
Jessica, just so you don't make the same mistake as with Evann, I am a man. I'm giving you fair warning so that you can turn on your "man" prejudices and stereotypes before you read my post.
If the victim is not to blame then the answer is to blame everyone else? If we're being sarcastic here, I would say something like "You're obviously a woman, totally lacking of logic and responsibility for your actions."
I agree that the victim did not rape herself or sexually assault herself which sounds like what may have happened. The victim did not do the crime. To take victim blaming to that level is saying something that nobody has said. Sounds like you're tilting at windmills for lack of better arguments.
The victim put herself into a position of being vulnerable to crime. Did the radio station commit the crime? No. Did they force her to accept the date? No. Did they force her to enter his house? No. Did they force her to accept a drink from him which may or may not have been drugged? No. Where exactly is this the fault of the radio station? They should've done a background check? This woman should've done one! You do a background check on everyone you date, right? Or with you friends that you setup on dates with? She didn't do a background check however. She didn't and she's the victim therefore the blame automatically bypasses her and goes to the next person who should've done something?
The victim obviously 1) thought this stranger would be a reasonable person to date 2) thought it would be okay to go over a stranger's house for a first date 3) thought it would be okay to have a drink made for her without her knowing the contents in this strangers house.
If there's anyone that should be liable it is her for criminal stupidity. Sadly, lacking personal responsibility is not a crime.
I'm actually shocked that anyone would take this case seriously with absolutely no physical evidence. This guy took a plea bargain because he has too much to risk in a he says/she says court case. If there was no physical evidence, why would anyone convict simply on her word against his? Having been in a jury in a domestic violence he said/she said case I wonder sometimes what I would do in that situation, both as a juror for this case and if a woman accused me of something.
The fact that his previous violations are for domestic violence protection orders and not for actual battery/assault makes me wonder. It is easy to setup a protection order and easier still to setup someone to be violated. A recent news story described a man who was convicted of violating a protection order when the person who filed the order showed up at his front door and he opened the door and talked with her. He got sent to jail for that. His name is Jonathan Nelson of Maine in case you want to know how easily things can be turned against someone with a protection order. Divorced men in custody battles know well to make sure they have police or sheriffs present when picking up children from their ex-spouses.
Sorry, I forgot no sarcastic humor was allowed on Feministing. I'll keep that in mind next time I consider commenting. I'll also try to remember no comments other than ones that agree with everyone are allowed. Thanks for the tips! :)
That's good that you have a sense of humor about rape and sexual assault. I hear it's rare for feminists to a sense of humor. You've proven me wrong!
If you've only "heard" that feminists have no sense of humor, she hasn't proved you wrong, she's proved whomever you heard it from, wrong.
So what you meant to say, is that like any other woman-hater, you believe women have no sense of humor because they don't find your rape jokes funny.
"If you've only "heard" that feminists have no sense of humor, she hasn't proved you wrong, she's proved whomever you heard it from, wrong."
If there was an edit option, I would restate my phrasing.
"So what you meant to say, is that like any other woman-hater, you believe women have no sense of humor because they don't find your rape jokes funny."
Which jokes about rape did I make Caton?
I think it's wonderful that you can snidely assume someone is a man just because they don't side with you and make generalizations like "men are un-empathetic" and pass it all off as sarcasm. And speaking of sarcasm, the first sentence of this comment is laden with it.
Oh you're shocked Bill? Why don't you sit down darlin, take a pill, and relax your little ole self.
Feelin better? Good. Now onto the rest of your rather long post.
I think that many radio stations feel like communities. They tend to be local (unless it was satellite, but since this was a blind date, let's assume not), and because they tend to be local, they do feel like a community. Often, the DJ's will become local celebrities and do events around the community. So there is a (false) feeling of comfort that is engendered. It would have behooved the girl to do a background check, but she might not even know how to go about it. It was incumbent upon the radio station to do one - they have the legal counsel handy. It would have been no big deal, and it was their reputations on the line.
I find it revealing that you have your doubts raised because his prior charges were "only" domestic violence. Of course, you have your one case ready, to show how unfairly men are treated. This reminds me of every obese person I have ever known, all have memorized the story of that one, 5 mile a day, vegetarian, health freak, who never drank or smoked, and dropped dead of a massive heart attack at 39. It's always slightly chilling to hear them tell their story. They always sound just slightly happy about it. Satisfied.
Of course, it doesn't change the fact that statistically, they're going to die much younger than the average non-smoking runner. And your story, even if true, doesn't change the fact that women are victims of domestic violence in this country, ever few minutes. And of rape.
the question then arises, why are you knee-jerk defending rapists and violence against women, under the guise of your never-ending anguish about the poor innocent man, and no thought to the thousands of women raped and beaten every day.
and the answer to that is one I would not want to explore too deeply. But I would like to let you know; you've been seen through.
Oh no! I've been seen through by you Caton? I guess I'll just run away and hide.
On second thought, maybe I won't.
"So there is a (false) feeling of comfort that is engendered. It would have behooved the girl to do a background check, but she might not even know how to go about it. It was incumbent upon the radio station to do one - they have the legal counsel handy. It would have been no big deal, and it was their reputations on the line."
Ending up with a bad reputation is much different than ending up with a civil lawsuit which is what this woman is trying to do. She has no reason to think this radio station should legally be responsible for what happened even in part.
"I find it revealing that you have your doubts raised because his prior charges were "only" domestic violence."
Reveal away! I just pointed out the facts. You can interpret as you wish. Pardon me ma'am, but your bias is showing.
"Of course, you have your one case ready, to show how unfairly men are treated."
If it wasn't so ridiculous biased, I wouldn't have to show this example.
"And your story, even if true, doesn't change the fact that women are victims of domestic violence in this country, ever few minutes."
Men are too. What's your point?
Gosh Bill, is there anyone on this site who doesn't know you're a 5 foot loser too scared to talk to women, so you hang on a feminist website where you can "tell them"? I'll bet you only type with one hand on the keyboard, eh? ;)
Yeah Bill, you're transparent. I said: "women are victims of domestic violence in this country, every few minutes."
You answered:
"Men are too. What's your point?"
Really Bill? Men are victims of domestic violence every few mintues? Is that right Bill? Oh and Bill, did you notice that everyone can drop the other poster's name over and over, and sound just as condescending and fake-friendly as you do, Bill? Did you get that Bill?
But to your pisspoor, misogynistic claim, that men are victims of domestic violence every few moments:
-Around the world, at least one in every three women has been beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused during her lifetime.3
-Nearly one-third of American women (31 percent) report being physically or sexually abused by a husband or boyfriend at some point in their lives, according to a 1998 Commonwealth Fund survey.4
-Nearly 25 percent of American women report being raped and/or physically assaulted by a current or former spouse, cohabiting partner, or date at some time in their lifetime, according to the National Violence Against Women Survey, conducted from November 1995 to May 1996.5
-Thirty percent of Americans say they know a woman who has been physically abused by her husband or boyfriend in the past year.6
-In the year 2001, more than half a million American women (588,490 women) were victims of nonfatal violence committed by an intimate partner.7
-Intimate partner violence is primarily a crime against women. In 2001, women accounted for 85 percent of the victims of intimate partner violence (588,490 total) and men accounted for approximately 15 percent of the victims (103,220 total).8
-While women are less likely than men to be victims of violent crimes overall, women are five to eight times more likely than men to be victimized by an intimate partner.9
-In 2001, intimate partner violence made up 20 percent of violent crime against women. The same year, intimate partners committed three percent of all violent crime against men.10
-As many as 324,000 women each year experience intimate partner violence during their pregnancy.11
-Women of all races are about equally vulnerable to violence by an intimate.12
-Male violence against women does much more damage than female violence against men; women are much more likely to be injured than men.13
-The most rapid growth in domestic relations caseloads is occurring in domestic violence filings. Between 1993 and 1995, 18 of 32 states with three year filing figures reported an increase of 20 percent or more.14
-Women are seven to 14 times more likely than men to report suffering severe physical assaults from an intimate partner.15
http://endabuse.org/resources/facts/
As you can see, Bill, you were catastrophically wrong. But that's nothing new for you, is it? Being humiliated my women...you hate it, and hate them for it, and it drives you to hang around feminist websites where you can belittle the planetary epidemic of violence against women. And yet...
And yet, you have a need to be humiliated by women. Does this go back to your mother? That's usually where it starts. Did she not compliment you on your poopies effusively enough Bill? Did your friend's mom make grandiose claims about his poops "oh it's sooo big", in front of you, leaving you feeling inadequate, a feeling which lasted a lifetime?
Yes, I'm sure all of this and so much more has lead you here, to be humiliated once again.
Well, taking responsibility as an individual and as a citizen also includes reporting crimes when they have occurred.
It is not the victims responsibility to determine whether there is sufficient evidence for reasonable doubt.
Bill says:
"If the victim is not to blame then the answer is to blame everyone else?"
The answer is to blame the RAPIST. Only a stupid rape-apologist would think to blame the victim.
The radio station did not rape the victim.
The radio station isn't to blame. The rapist is to blame.
Certainly, other people could have taken more precautions. But imprudence does not imply blame when we're talking about deliberate harms.
And depressingly so.
Radio stations really need to be held to a higher standard when it comes to their contests. I remember someone dying from one a few years ago, and now this. What they did might not be legally wrong, but they should do their best to keep contestants safe, and running a criminal record isn't that hard (or checking with doctors, which I believe was the problem with the death).
Good luck with finishing law school!
This is absolute bullshit. WTF. If they are promoting a date, they [radio] do need to be held accountable for knowing at least that the fucken guy had a criminal record... specially it being on domestic violence. The rapist is the rapist, but through the date set up by the RADIO was he able to rape this womun.
This shit is crazy ridiculous, but, unfortunately, not surprising. :(
That's pretty ridiculous that the radio station didn't do a background check. Very unprofessional, to say the least.
That was pretty horrifically negligent on the radio's end for setting up a DATING CONTEST with a SEX OFFENDER.
I hope she gets enough money to have her own in ground pool made of money and blood of axed radio producers.
I can't believe I have to add this but after the random pile-on on Evann above, I guess I have to state as a disclaimer that rape is bad and it obviously wasn't the victim's fault.
Now, its an interesting legal issue. I think the general feeling is that since they're a corporation, they should be held to a higher standard of things, they should have done a background check or something. But what if you set up two friends on a blind date and the guy rapes the girl and it turns out was a sex offender but you didn't know about it? Were you negligent for not checking into his background first? Should you have looked him up on a sex offender list?
Its not unreasonable to hold a corporation to a higher standard than an individual, but does the law support that? I don't actually know.
I don't support it, but the legal precedent is that it is unconstitutional to create laws that "discriminate" against corporations. They never have responsibilities that real people don't have.
I know we're all pissed about the outcome of this case. We can all agree what happened is AWFUL. Unfortunately, as far as I can see from a *legal* standpoint, there's just NO law to hold the radio station accountable to.
It's VERY hard to hold someone (corp or person) responsible for the actions of another. (for feasibility and fairness issues: it's very hard to control exactly what another person does, and it's generally unfair to punish someone for the wrongs of another)
There are VERY limited circumstances where you can legally hold someone responsible for the actions of another: employer/(employee or contractor), principal/agent, parent/child. That's it.
This man wasn't an employer, child, or contractor. I doubt he could be considered an agent of the radio station either: he wasn't representing the station, wasn't doing anything on behalf of them.
Negligence? REALLY hard. you have to prove that the radio station breached reasonable care in which the RESULT was foreseeable, and that their action was the direct cause of the result. Drunk driving? An accident is foreseeable. Injuring someone is foreseeable. Setting someone up on a date and not doing a criminal background check? I don't know if a judge will consider rape to be the foreseeable result. After all, as Terabithia said, this is done every day. People go on dates without background checks, trust websites like EHarmony to tell them who is marriage material, go on speed-dating or are members of singles clubs.
There's a difference between ethically wrong and legally wrong. As we all know, it's not illegal to be an asshole, stupid, or rude. What the radio station did was STUPID STUPID STUPID, but I don't think it will make it in court.
Bill Diamond: First of all, I don't think the point is to put the blame on to "everyone". The blame is where it should be: on the man who committed the rape. Everyone should take precautions to protect themselves, but she didn't commit a crime, he did, and the fact that she made a mistake doesn't lessen his crime.
Just because there was no "physical" evidence, doesn't mean that a crime wasn't committed. There are lots of kinds of evidence, and since it was a plea deal, the facts of the crime don't have to be released, so please don't assume that it was only a "he-said, she said". The fact that this man chose to plea means that the prosecutors probably had a very good case against him. Doesn't mean he did it, but it means they had enough evidence to go to trial, which is significant. And evidence of past crimes is almost NEVER allowed to prove guilt of a new crime, so that's not an issue.
I work in a domestic violence law firm, so I know a little about protection orders- first, you are conflating two different things: obtaining and enforcing an order.
*obtaining* a protection order is difficult. you have to prove several elements to a judge, and the judge has to hear the other party's side if it is to be permanent. Judges do NOT take these lightly and look for actual evidence.
*enforcing* an order is different. If you violate it, you go to jail. if a CPO says you can't contact the petitioner, you can't contact the petitioner. It's your burden, and you have to be sure YOU don't violate it. I don't know about the case you're talking about, but it sounds like he shouldn't have opened the door. If a judge decides to issue a court order for you not to be in contact with the petitioner, then you better believe the judge will be pissed if you violate a court order.
ok... legal rant over....
My knowledge of law pretty much extends as far as they go on CSI, so thanks for explaining that in plain English. :)
I agree. The only person at fault here is the rapist. People get set up by friends, websites, family members, etc, all the time. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that you won't be raped by someone you go out with. Even if you go to their place for a drink or walk down a street with them alone.
Yeah, the station probably should have, I don't know, Googled him? But that doesn't make them responsible for his actions. He is responsible for his actions.
I absolutely agree that there could have been a crime committed.
"There are lots of kinds of evidence, and since it was a plea deal, the facts of the crime don't have to be released, so please don't assume that it was only a "he-said, she said"."
I am just going by all the stories that say there was no physical evidence. I think the facts are not disputed that she was over his house alone that's certainly evidence not in dispute.
Again, given that his plea had no jail time, and a conviction could mean 1+ year in jail, if you were in his position would you trust the next years of your life to the whim of a jury? I've sat on a jury in a case like this. I don't know what I'd do in his situation. It's scary to think about. Do you know what you'd do? Being in the legal profession, doesn't it scare you when innocent people are convicted?
"The fact that this man chose to plea means that the prosecutors probably had a very good case against him."
If they had a good case, why would they do a plea for only 12 months probation for sexual assault charge?!?!?! With someone who had prior domestic violence related charges? You seem to know that the prosecutors had a good case. My point if view is simply, I don't know.
"Doesn't mean he did it, but it means they had enough evidence to go to trial, which is significant."
As I mentioned earlier, I was on a jury for a domestic violence case that went through a 2 day trial, 3 days of deliberation. The only physical evidence was a photograph that nobody on the jury could see anything on. It was his word against hers with a photograph of an arm where he supposedly grabbed her. Nobody on the jury could see anything in that picture. Ended up a hung jury. He didn't testify. I voted to convict but honestly, I'm glad someone stood up and said, "I just can't tell what went on in that room beyond a reasonable doubt."
"if you were in his position would you trust the next years of your life to the whim of a jury? I've sat on a jury in a case like this. I don't know what I'd do in his situation. It's scary to think about. Do you know what you'd do? Being in the legal profession, doesn't it scare you when innocent people are convicted?"
First, he wasn't convicted. He pled guilty. Difference. They're different on your record and treated differently. Second, frankly, if I was charged with a crime I didn't commit like rape, I sure as shit wouldn't plead guilty! I would go to trial, and if they found me guilty, I would appeal. Proof in a criminal case is VERY high, higher than that required in a civil case, so meeting it is no small task. But, what you or I *would* do doesn't matter, we aren't him, and we dont know what his thought process is.
"If they had a good case, why would they do a plea for only 12 months probation for sexual assault charge?!?!?!"
Lots of reasons. They might be told they have to focus their resources on other crimes, the prosecutor might not take these cases very seriously, the alleged victim might not have wanted to go through with a long trial, the victim might not "present" well to a jury, the prosecutor might not like the judge in the trial, or the evidence might be very damning, but the trial would take a long time and be hard for the victim, so they would prefer to just get a plea..... it's very very discretionary as to how a case is handled.
Either way, to have someone plea to something is significant, and from what i've seen, its usually because the prosecutor *could* go to trial with a more serious charge, and for any number of reasons agrees to reduce the charge for the perp to just admit to something. In my opinion, people don't do that if they aren't in the wrong. Maybe you would do something different, but like you said, beond reasonable doubt based ONLY on someone's word is REALLY hard, so i'm thinking they had more evidence than that. who knows, just my experience.
I'm glad you're so sure of yourself. I think the more you know, the less confident about things you'll become. If you haven't gotten there in law school yet, at least in my state and a number of other states, appeals to jury trials don't necessarily get heard unless there's a specific procedural error that the defense can point out. They don't happen just because you say you're innocent.
Second, I've been there. I've seen how close a jury came to convicting someone based on the most scant of evidence. You make it seem like the law and jurors are infallible. They are not! They're biased, they're sympathizing but unfortunately it's the best we have.
"In my opinion, people don't do that if they aren't in the wrong."
No? Let me guess... you're not going to be a defense lawyer are you? And everyone in prison must be guilty because if they were actually innocent, their convictions would have been overturned in appeal? And the defendant wouldn't plea to avoid a lengthy trial for the sake of his children or job?
"Maybe you would do something different, but like you said, beond reasonable doubt based ONLY on someone's word is REALLY hard, so i'm thinking they had more evidence than that. who knows, just my experience."
My experience is being on a jury in a he said/she said domestic violence case with no evidence It wasn't hard to get one juror away from a conviction. What's your experience that you seem so sure of the judgments of a jury? Based on my experience, I would question what I would do in that situation. You seem to have no doubt about what you do which makes me question your experience.
The way I see it, if they had specifically CLAIMED they did a background check when they didn't, then there might be something to charge them with.
I don't understand how they ended up at his house for the first date anyway. Isn't the whole point of a radio contest like this to have the first date happen with the radio DJ there commenting on it, or something?
Why does it matter why they were at his house? It's questions like that that lead women to be distrustful of every man. There's nothing wrong with ending a date in someone's house, and having it have nothing to do with sex, and there are plenty of reasons to visit someone's house at the end of a date. Totally beside the point whether or not you can understand it.
If there was no physical evidence, why is Travis being charged at all, for anything?
I'm no lawyer, but I've heard that it is quite common for there not to be any physical evidence after a rape. For example, if he used a condom; and date rape drugs metabolize quickly, meaning that within 12 hours they are cleared and thus undetectable.
Anybody with legal expertise want to chime in?
Evann@ 9:15 PM has the answers! Thanks, that's what I was wondering.
thanks! I'm sure I've left some stuff out, but that's the gist.
One thing I've definitely learned in law school is that life is NOT FAIR and that while you can draw bright lines, there will always be grey areas on either side.
That is absolutely terrible and disclaimer: this comment is gonna be totally off topic.
Just reading the comments, people seem to have moved away from the original issue, and that's what the article is about...I find it quite funny actually aaaan...with all of the Jennifer/Bill Diamond issue or whatever i was...i'm of the opinion that people should try to stay away from sarcasm when on the internet just because it's so easily misinterpreted...
I think the radio station has some clear accountability here. Would we even be discussing it if the guy had been a serial murderer instead of a rapist? The fact of the matter if that they are not in a position to promote someone as "date-able" if they have a public record that could have been discovered with ten minutes of research. Sure, a lot of guys can be creeps and you'd never know it, because they've never done anything illegal or at least never been caught. But he had a criminal record and they didn't even bother to check.
Have you ever been set up on a date? Ever set up someone on a date with a friend? Do you think background checks should be done by regular people in these cases? Are men who ask you out on a date be required to provide a copy of their background checks before you'll go out with them?
I never said I was an expert, but I do work in a domestic violence law firm and I'm in my last year of law school, so I know something about the legal workings of how a trial gets put together.
Just because you didn't see evidence at the trial doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Evidence can be lost, witnesses can recant, witnesses can refuse to testify or not be found, witnesses can be found unreliable, evidence can be declared inadmissible or not entered properly and the jury will NEVER know. What you see at a trial is not the whole story. and you keep complaining about the one trial you sat on where the guy was "almost convicted" on "scant evidence"... um, didnt you say YOU voted to convict him? so what's the deal? was he wrongly accused or a rapist?
I know appeals aren't always heard. I didn't think I had to explain every segment of how a trial works. You know when appeals are definitely not heard? when you plead guilty. I sure as hell would rather take the chance with a trial than give up and admit I did a heinous crime. If you would, that's you, but most people don't like to admit to shit they didn't do, especially sexual assault. Sure, there are rare time when someone might, hence i said "The fact that this man chose to plea means that the prosecutors probably had a very good case against him. Doesn't mean he did it..."
Based on your experience, you question my judgment? because you sat on one trial once and voted to convict a guy on "scant evidence"? wev.
The evidence that I may not have heard did not end up in the deliberation room but the fact that we got to the point of deliberations means the prosecutor thought he could win the case and the defendant thought he could be found not guilty. We talked to the prosecutor afterward and he was trying to understand what went wrong. He thought with that useless photograph that we would find for guilt.
When I was on the jury, I was much younger. With age I have realized the necessity of fairness in a justice system that is not necessarily fair, or just for that matter. It was a great experience and very eye opening. I look forward to the next time that I'm called for jury duty. I hope one day you have that chance. And also have time to reflect on it.
I'm was not meaning to question your judgment just stating that there have been many, many people who have plead guilty yet later been exonerated by DNA evidence. May you never find yourself in that situation and may all your days be sunny. I can think of few worse things than to be forced into pleading guilty to crimes such as murder or rape as these innocent people have been.
Browsing the stories of the exonerated people here http://www.innocenceproject.org might give you some wisdom to go along with your judgments. There are 225 stories at the last count. You can search for the ones convicted based on false confessions. There are 48 out of 225 exonerations where the innocent person either confessed or plead guilty. May your eyes be opened.
false confessions to police, plea deals, and convictions are all TOTALLY different, with completely different legal ramifications and standards, so you can't lump them in all the same category. Of course I don't want anyone to plea or be found guilty of something they didn't do.
Anyways, we've veered way off track, so i'm going to head to bed, thanks.
General question, since you are knowledgable!
Wouldn't it be more telling that he plead guilty, since conviction rates for rapes are so low? I would think that that would mean that they'd have to have a really good case for him to be worried about conviction enough to plead guilty to an ambiguous case.
ah, how can I resist?
ok, so basically I look at it from a probabilities standpoint.
Issue one: like all humans, prosecutors like to "win" and hate to look stupid. Prosecutors don't want to (and it's illegal) prosecute a case without merit. They will lose, it's a waste of time when they could bust people who have clear evidence, and it reflects poorly on them. But even if a prosecutor really just thinks that everyone that darkens their door is guilty, there is another check: the judge. Judges must toss out cases without merit. It wastes the court's time, and the judge doesn't want to risk getting overturned on appeal (embarrassing and judges REALLY hate being wrong)
Issue two: Rape is a serious, awful crime. It carries a huge stigma. Human nature is to fight against being wrongly convicted, especially with something that carries such an awful connotation. I don't know about you, but I assume most people would fight like HELL not to be falsely (or even rightfully) charged with this crime. I personally would risk going into deep debt rather than have a stain like this on my record. Would everyone? no, but i would say a VAST majority of people would.
Even if you were convicted, you could still personally maintain your innocence, and hope for an appeal or mistrial. And like you said, rape convictions are not easy! Not only is it a private crime with no witnesses (usually), but there is sometimes no physical evidence. And juries can be prejudiced against victims for a variety of reasons.
So based on the law of probabilities, one would assume that this guy moooost likely did at the very least sexually assault the woman.
(side story: my dad is a public defender, and once DID help a client do this. The man was a mexican immigrant who worked in a carnival, and was accused of touching a child while he buckled her into a ride. My dad absolutely believed that this man was innocent, but knew that a trial was risky- the child had inconsistent testimony and the man didn't present well. My dad made the very hard decision (with his client's informed consent) to have him plea to something lesser, which meant he had to be deported. The man spoke no english and was TERRIFIED, and just wanted to go home. So yes, I know that this can happen, but honestly that is the only case i can think of that I have heard from him.)
so, we can never know. but we can make really good guesses.
Of course we don't know if the Mexican immigrant actually did anything to the child or not but I just wanted to remind you of your earlier comment:
"Either way, to have someone plea to something is significant, and from what i've seen, its usually because the prosecutor *could* go to trial with a more serious charge, and for any number of reasons agrees to reduce the charge for the perp to just admit to something."
And the last part of your quote:
"In my opinion, people don't do that (meaning plea guilty) if they aren't in the wrong."
In your opinion without knowing any facts, are you more likely to assume that this person was guilty? Things don't happen in the courts the way we think and common sense says they should. Courts are not necessarily fair nor just. DNA testing as with the innocenceproject.org can prove certain types of crimes. In the case of this Mexican immigrant, even if he continues saying that he was innocent until the day he dies, he will never have this crime removed from his record.
I suspect the reason why your father must have told you about this case is because it was a very sad one and probably weighed on his mind. If he's still alive I hope you can ask him about it to get his insight. But things like this happen across the country over and over again. The innocenceproject.org has some examples but these are certainly only a fraction of the cases out there especially in decades past where racial prejudices, eye witness testimonies, and lack of sophisticated forensics put many African American men behind bars.
I don't presume to know what happened in that Travis Harvey's house but understand that people do plea guilty for many reasons other than guilt.
I said the vast majority. But thanks for once again for not understanding what i'm saying at all- and i seriously don't feel like explaining anymore to someone who is boringly argumentative I'm going to take all of your misinformed opinions and suggestions (because you've proven over and over that you don't understand the legal system at all) and send them right where they belong: the circular file!
I didn't realize I was here to amuse you. If you are finding this argument about plea bargains and innocent people being instructed by lawyers to plea guilty then criminal law is not the right field for you. I weep for this country when people who enter the legal profession have such clear biases against those being prosecuted.