Rape victim jailed... in California (Trigger!)

[psyck0]

I can't BELIEVE that anywhere in the developed world could have laws on the books to make this possible. Here in civilised land (Canada) rape trials don't even proceed if the victim doesn't want to testify, unless they have other evidence. It should absolutely be the right of every victim of ANY crime to refuse to testify for ANY reason.

By the way, a lot of people hate on statutory rape laws, and I don't understand why. Age of consent in Canada is 14, and you need to be X number of years older (I think it was 4? 5?) for it to be considered rape. An 18 year old having sex with someone who has barely started puberty is pretty manipulative/coercive in my book.

If a 14 year old is mentally capable of making the decision to have consensual sex with a 15 year old, why is she not mentally capable of making the decision to have consensual sex with a 20 year old? The idea that if someone is much older, they must be manipulating or coercing the younger person is fallacious. If that is what you are trying to protect against, make the law along the lines of "Manipulating or coercing a person into sexual acts" (then you can arrest pick up artists too!). A 15 year old can be just as capable as a 20 year old in manipulating a girl into sex.

I'd rather see guilty people get away with rape then see innocent people have their life ruined between jail time and the sex offender registry.

Are you seriously not able to make that connection for yourself? It's because there are different levels of maturity. Children and teens have sufficient maturity to interact with their peers but can still easily be taken advantage of by adults for many reasons, partly because they are in a vulnerable stage of their lives and trying to forge a self-identity, partly because they don't yet have enough life experience to make good judgements, partly because our culture really pushes them to obey what adults tell them, etc, etc. A 15 year old may say exactly the same thing as an adult but the adult's place in the power heirarchy adds far more weight to their words.

[yurell]

So you'd rather let a hypothetical torturer-rapist go free to violate and torture another score young women than force one of the victims to testify against him? Even if the reason is that they've been bribed not to?

[psyck0]

So you'd rather let a hypothetical torturer-rapist go free to violate and torture another score young women than force one of the victims to testify against him?

Yes. Yes I would. If the witness is that reluctant, her testimony probably won't convict anyway. Furthermore, the alternative is the state punsihing people who have already been incredibly victimised (from your post, I imagine that you don't have the slightest bit of comprehension of what a sexual assault is like for the victim, or of the stigma that victims face for daring to say anything). Further to that, this sort of idiocy will strongly discourage victims from coming forward in the future. They're already liable to be called sluts or to be told they were asking for it by police; now there's the threat that if they do come forward but don't do exactly what the prosecutor wants, they'll be locked up? This kind of stupid, stupid policy will cause far more sexual offenders to go free AND cause harm to the (very large) number of women who are raped every year. I can't believe you WOULD want to lock up someone who has already been a victim.

[Malice]

Should our justice system be about punishing the guilty or protecting the innocent?

Preferably both, but if it's made a dilemma, the latter. Ultimately the former is just a means to the latter, right?

To continue the thought, though, what's more important--protecting the future victims of a serial rapist from rape or protecting this one victim from an uncomfortable month in jail?

[psyck0]

Read my post. We already believe as a society that we should let 10 murderers go free rather than convict one innocent person; hell, I believe that is somewhere in your constitution (if it's not, forgive me, I haven't read the piece of trash ever). How the flying fuck is this any different?

What's more important? Protecting the American public from terrorists or protecting these brown people from being searched every time they go to a major event where they could kill lots of people with a bomb?

[yurell]

Yes. Yes I would.

And I'm sure the twenty victims are grateful for your mercy.

(from your post, I imagine that you don't have the slightest bit of comprehension of what a sexual assault is like for the victim, or of the stigma that victims face for daring to say anything).

What right do you think you bloody well have to claim that? You have no idea about me or what I've gone through, so don't you dare to presume to tell me I've not the slightest bit of understanding.

I can't believe you WOULD want to lock up someone who has already been a victim.

I can't believe you would want twenty women to get tortured and raped instead of one bribed victim being made to testify once.

[DavidH]

Read my post. We already believe as a society that we should let 10 murderers go free rather than convict one innocent person; hell, I believe that is somewhere in your constitution (if it's not, forgive me, I haven't read the piece of trash ever). How the flying fuck is this any different?

You're aware that in Canada the victim doesn't have a choice once a rape is reported to the crown, right? The crown cannot drop the case and will compel the witness to testify.

Do you have any idea how few witnesses want to get involved and testify? There's a reason they force you to.

The logical fallacy of appeal to emotion because she was raped is getting thin.

[Iulus Cofield]

I can't BELIEVE that anywhere in the developed world could have laws on the books to make this possible. Here in civilised land (Canada) rape trials don't even proceed if the victim doesn't want to testify, unless they have other evidence. It should absolutely be the right of every victim of ANY crime to refuse to testify for ANY reason.

So you'd rather let a hypothetical torturer-rapist go free to violate and torture another score young women than force one of the victims to testify against him?

Yes. Yes I would. If the witness is that reluctant, her testimony probably won't convict anyway. Furthermore, the alternative is the state punsihing people who have already been incredibly victimised (from your post, I imagine that you don't have the slightest bit of comprehension of what a sexual assault is like for the victim, or of the stigma that victims face for daring to say anything). Further to that, this sort of idiocy will strongly discourage victims from coming forward in the future. They're already liable to be called sluts or to be told they were asking for it by police; now there's the threat that if they do come forward but don't do exactly what the prosecutor wants, they'll be locked up? This kind of stupid, stupid policy will cause far more sexual offenders to go free AND cause harm to the (very large) number of women who are raped every year. I can't believe you WOULD want to lock up someone who has already been a victim.

So, in what you call a civilized land, it is entirely possible to rape someone, then threaten them credibly enough to terrify them to the point that they refuse to testify, and thus commit rape with an extremely low chance of even being prosecuted, much less be incarcerated? And you could even repeat this indefinitely, so long as you are careful in choosing victims and not leaving any conclusive physical evidence?

Whatever you do, do not. Ever. Tell. 4chan. Because they will probably not stop to check facts. (Thanks, David, for dispelling such bizarre misinformation.)

While the circumstances of this case are...distressing, to say the least, the legal principle behind it is sound. A nation in which witnesses can simply refuse to testify is a nation in which the law has made criminals much easier to evade justice. And for what? To, in some exceptional instances, protect the emotional well being of witnesses? The American justice system, for better or worse, has not been designed to protect the feelings of anyone.

[psyck0]

Read my post. We already believe as a society that we should let 10 murderers go free rather than convict one innocent person; hell, I believe that is somewhere in your constitution (if it's not, forgive me, I haven't read the piece of trash ever). How the flying fuck is this any different?

You're aware that in Canada the victim doesn't have a choice once a rape is reported to the crown, right? The crown cannot drop the case and will compel the witness to testify.

Do you have any idea how few witnesses want to get involved and testify? There's a reason they force you to.

The logical fallacy of appeal to emotion because she was raped is getting thin.

They drop the case all the fucking time. It may not be enshrined in law (but it should be, for the reasons I described above, which none of you have been able to actually address), but prosecutors do NOT proceed with rape charges in Canada without a willing witness for the reasons I have described.

This talk about protecting the feelings of the witness just displays you as the stupid misogynist you are. You clearly have absolutely no empathy for rape victims, nor do you even have any rational basis behind your position since it is evidently clear that this kind of stupid policy is what dissuades rape reporting and rape conviction in the first place.

There is no need for rapists to threaten their victims; the entire court system is already stacked against the victims, and this kind of retarded law enforcement is what is causing it to be stacked. I know MDs who work with sexual assault victims, and they see the real numbers of assaults, not the police, because victims hardly ever go to the police. Less than 5% of victims who seek medical attention ever even have a case get to court, and this stupid shit is why. Fix the endemic misogynist victim blaming in the system, such as this, and we'll get FAR more rape convictions than we ever will trying to threatened scared women into testifying against a single individual.

[yurell]

How nice, you call people who disagree with you 'misogynists', in one blow proving both that you believe their only reason for holding the belief is sexism despite having it explained to you and that you believe rape victims who refuse to testify are always women. Congratulations on such a startling display of ignorance in a single word.

Try to argue against people's arguments, instead of your own vague ideas as to what the motive of those arguments may be.

[Lucrece]

I don't think it's particularly heinous to prioritize the prevention of other women being brutally raped/killed in order to not force a previous victim to confront the accused. Society works because we agree to take efforts and compel each other to take care of its members. Why should society then care for your victimization if you're unwilling to care about the potential victimization of others? It's not like rapists are the one-off kind of people. Duties come alongside the benefits of being part of society.

I do wish/hope that the accommodations would not be the same given to actual criminals. It still feels like adding salt to the wound.

How nice, you call people who disagree with you 'misogynists', in one blow proving both that you believe their only reason for holding the belief is sexism despite having it explained to you and that you believe rape victims who refuse to testify are always women. Congratulations on such a startling display of ignorance in a single word.

Try to argue against people's arguments, instead of your own vague ideas as to what the motive of those arguments may be.

It's also rich to hear someone throwing the word "misogyny" around while casually using "retarded" to mean something negative. Fight against the marginalization of one group while happily contributing to the marginalization of another.

[psyck0]

How nice, you call people who disagree with you 'misogynists', in one blow proving both that you believe their only reason for holding the belief is sexism despite having it explained to you and that you believe rape victims who refuse to testify are always women. Congratulations on such a startling display of ignorance in a single word.

Try to argue against people's arguments, instead of your own vague ideas as to what the motive of those arguments may be.

What arguments do you have? Oh, this one person *might* go out and rape 20 more women. That's not an argument. As I have already pointed out, this kind of enforcement does far more harm than any benefit you might get from forcing her to testifying, which is virtually guaranteed not to convict anyway because she is so obviously unwilling. You haven't said anything else worth addressing and haven't addressed a damn thing I have said except to say I'm being overly sentimental and completely ignore my point that this is counter-productive and destructive.

[lutzj]

I do wish/hope that the accommodations would not be the same given to actual criminals. It still feels like adding salt to the wound.

They did offer house arrest in a foster home, which is roughly identical to the living situation she'd have anyway, but that might just be because she's a minor.

[yurell]

What arguments do you have? Oh, this one person *might* go out and rape 20 more women. That's not an argument.

It's called a 'hypothetical situation', and is used to highlight issues with a statement — in this case "[it] should absolutely be the right of every victim of ANY crime to refuse to testify for ANY reason." I tend towards more utilitarian ideals, and so the idea of letting criminals go if they intimidate their victims hard enough is truly disgusting to me. And the fact you would rather I be raped than have an earlier victim testify against the rapist is incredibly disturbing to me — I live in a society where we have both rights and duties, and testifying as the sole witness of a crime that one reported is one of those duties.
Many rape victims choose not to report it — such is their (intensely personal) choice. The lack of people reporting is due in part (if not mostly) to huge problems in the system that need to be addressed, such as victim-blaming, but forcing someone to testify once they've already reported the crime is not one of those problems that needs to be 'fixed'. If you are the sole witness then chances are refusing to testify is wasting the police and the court's time (and the crown's money), not to mention showing the criminal that they can intimidate people into silence even after they've been reported, possibly leading them to commit crimes with more confidence.

As I have already pointed out, this kind of enforcement does far more harm than any benefit you might get from forcing her to testifying, which is virtually guaranteed not to convict anyway because she is so obviously unwilling. You haven't said anything else worth addressing and haven't addressed a damn thing I have said except to say I'm being overly sentimental and completely ignore my point that this is counter-productive and destructive.

What part of that was justification for calling any of us misogynistic? And what evidence do you have that this does more harm than good? In order to establish that, you need to demonstrate that more victims of violent crime are likely to report and testify if they're not compelled to testify after they report. I would love to see your evidence for that.

[Diadem]

She has refused to testify and actively ran away when it came time for court appearances.

Seeing as I'd like the alleged scumbag locked up, it's a necessary measure.

So people should be jailed for not doing what you want them to do? Fuck that.

The alternatives are... what, exactly? If her testimony is the difference between a man getting convicted or not (and assuming he really did it), should the state not pursue this and let an alleged rapist walk free?

Yes. Yes. Of course. Why are you stating something blindingly obvious as if it's something strange?

Why do you want to make being raped a crime?

While the circumstances of this case are...distressing, to say the least, the legal principle behind it is sound. A nation in which witnesses can simply refuse to testify is a nation in which the law has made criminals much easier to evade justice. And for what? To, in some exceptional instances, protect the emotional well being of witnesses? The American justice system, for better or worse, has not been designed to protect the feelings of anyone.

The legal principle that being victim of a crime is a crime in and of itself? No. Fuck that. The principle is not just not sound, it's fucking bizarre.

And yes, you are making it a crime to be a victim with such a law. You're taking away their right to freedom, and only return it contingent on their cooperation.

[Thesh]

Are you seriously not able to make that connection for yourself? It's because there are different levels of maturity. Children and teens have sufficient maturity to interact with their peers but can still easily be taken advantage of by adults for many reasons, partly because they are in a vulnerable stage of their lives and trying to forge a self-identity, partly because they don't yet have enough life experience to make good judgements, partly because our culture really pushes them to obey what adults tell them, etc, etc. A 15 year old may say exactly the same thing as an adult but the adult's place in the power heirarchy adds far more weight to their words.

You're missing the point entirely. Just because someone is capable of taking advantage of someone else doesn't mean they are taking advantage of someone else. Also, just because you are X years old, doesn't mean you are more or less mature than someone of Y years of age. It depends on your environment, what you've had to deal with. Someone who is fairly sheltered, for example, might not be as mature as someone who has had a hard life and had to step up when they were still a kid even if they are several years older. You cannot use age as a universal measure of maturity, and you certainly cannot use age alone to determine if there was manipulation or coercion involved.

[Malice]

She has refused to testify and actively ran away when it came time for court appearances.

Seeing as I'd like the alleged scumbag locked up, it's a necessary measure.

So people should be jailed for not doing what you want them to do? Fuck that.

Material witness orders have been around for a long time, even if their use is somewhat uncommon. This is about whether or not they should be applied to the victim of a crime; don't move the goalposts out of the stadium.

The alternatives are... what, exactly? If her testimony is the difference between a man getting convicted or not (and assuming he really did it), should the state not pursue this and let an alleged rapist walk free?

Yes. Yes. Of course. Why are you stating something blindingly obvious as if it's something strange?

Why do you want to make being raped a crime?

Her crime wasn't being raped; it was promising to show up to court to help prosecute a serial rapist and then failing to show up, repeatedly. The justice system cannot function if people do not step forward to give evidence. Only in extreme cases do we need to use the system itself to force people to testify; whether this instance is right or wrong, it's an edge case.

My guess is that if she had refused to testify in the first place, this never would have happened; but promising to testify and then not showing up, more than once, probably led the prosecutors to use their legal authority to make sure she would be present next time. If there's a slippery slope here, it's much shorter than you make it out to be; it's not going to lead to the criminalization of victimhood.

[Zamfir]

This is a sensitive topic. I want to ask everybody to keep themselves in check a little, and avoid too personal confrontations. Eeven if you're deeply convinced that other people have an immoral opinion on the issue. Also, don't make it a pissing contest about which country is best

[ElWanderer]

My guess is that if she had refused to testify in the first place, this never would have happened; but promising to testify and then not showing up, more than once, probably led the prosecutors to use their legal authority to make sure she would be present next time.

(I'm in the UK)

I was mugged a few years back. When I gave my statement, I was specifically asked if I was prepared to testify to the contents in court or not - from memory I signed to that effect on the form. Is there something similar in the US? In my situation, I could have said no, in which case the police probably would have quickly decided it would be impossible to build a firm case. For key witnesses, agreeing to testify but then failing to turn up is a complete waste of a lot of people's time, and in the UK might be a form of Contempt of Court. I guess one question is did the victim in this case agree to testify from the outset and if so, how free and well-informed were they to make that decision?

A month in jail seems excessive on the face of it, but if it takes them a month to reschedule the court case (mine got delayed by four weeks at very short notice), it might just be down to the logistics.

[Angua]

Did they explain to you what could happen if you went back on what you signed on the form (you seem to be a bit hazy on whether or not not testifying would be counted as contempt of court). Or did they just give you a form and say tick yes if you will testify, or no if you won't without explicitly, 'If you tick yes and later don't want to testify, you could be arrested,' as, for me at least, if I was given that form I'd assume it was just for their records - not something legally binding. Someone might argue that this information could be somewhere in the small print on the form, but when someone has just been traumatised, expecting them to do much more than going through the motions is asking a lot.

[sourmìlk]

Diadem, see what Malice said: being raped in and of itself requires no action on the part of the victim. Accusing a person of rape does. Being raped doesn't limit your freedom (from the government's perspective), but promising to do something (i.e. testify) does bind you to do that thing.

[ElWanderer]

Did they explain to you what could happen if you went back on what you signed on the form

Unfortunately I can't remember (apologies for my haziness) and because I was determined to testify (despite knowing I'd be very, very, very nervous), I didn't explore the consequences at the time. I don't think I have a copy of what I signed as I certainly wasn't allowed to keep a copy of the witness statement itself - that's to prevent collusion, rehearsing the statement and possibly other things, or so I was told shortly before the trial. I may have something about the consequences of failing to attend court when called to do so in the "so you're going to appear in court as a witness" information pack (it included a DVD!), but that was much later on in the process. I would assume there is a difference between changing your mind about wanting to testify (and making that known in good time) and failing to turn up when called to attend court.

Some quick googling hasn't shed much light. Spoilered as it's UK-specific:

Spoiler:

The CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) website is quite light on details. The HSE (Health & Safety Executive) website seems to have much more, but it's possibly quite specialised towards health & safety cases - it seems to suggest signed statements can be given as evidence without the statement-giver needing to appear in court, which would be a bit weird for a key witness in a criminal trial as it would be impossible to cross-examine. I think this may be the best link. It lays out what should be in a witness statement, including a statement of truth:

20.1
A witness statement is the equivalent of the oral evidence which that witness would, if called, give in evidence; it must include a statement by the intended witness that he believes the facts in it are true.

20.2
To verify a witness statement the statement of truth is as follows:
‘I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true’.

20.3
Attention is drawn to rule 32.14 which sets out the consequences of verifying a witness statement containing a false statement without an honest belief in its truth.

I couldn't find anything about being prepared to testify or not. Perhaps you are right that the "would you be prepared to testify in court?" option was something non-binding for the police to determine whether it was worth pursuing or not.

My memory may have failed me (it's been a few years and I've tried to forget it!), but I am convinced there were two separate sentences I signed, one that the witness statement was true to the best of my knowledge, and one that I'd be prepared to appear in court. As the first one was legally binding and there was a warning about giving false testimony, I may have mentally upgraded the nature of the second one.

For the case in this thread, you'd like to think the police/prosecution were confident/had checked that the witness was actually willing to testify, especially after their first non-appearance. There does seem to have been some kind of failure to support the victim.

[omgryebread]

I do wish/hope that the accommodations would not be the same given to actual criminals. It still feels like adding salt to the wound.

They did offer house arrest in a foster home, which is roughly identical to the living situation she'd have anyway, but that might just be because she's a minor.

No they didn't.

Ms. Franco has proposed releasing her to a foster home with a GPS tracking device around her ankle.

Ms. Franco being the girl's lawyer. Even if the prosecuters accepted (it doesn't sound like they had at the time the article was written, the girl's lawyer shouldn't have to propose it. You can at least pretend a GPS tracker is for her own safety, you sure can't with jail.


As for getting justice or whatever here, testifying against your rapist is traumatic. I assume it's very much so when the guy is as fucking scary as this guy sounds. You guys don't think it might discourage more people from coming forward and reporting their rape at all if they know they'll be forced to testify, and jailed if they don't?

[jakovasaur]

As for getting justice or whatever here, testifying against your rapist is traumatic. I assume it's very much so when the guy is as fucking scary as this guy sounds. You guys don't think it might discourage more people from coming forward and reporting their rape at all if they know they'll be forced to testify, and jailed if they don't?

What's the point, or benefit, of encouraging people to report rapes if they don't intend to testify?

[lutzj]

I do wish/hope that the accommodations would not be the same given to actual criminals. It still feels like adding salt to the wound.

They did offer house arrest in a foster home, which is roughly identical to the living situation she'd have anyway, but that might just be because she's a minor.

No they didn't.

My bad; I confused the girl's lawyer's statement with those of the prosecutor. For what it's worth, I still agree that house arrest would be a good compromise between not unnecessarily harming the victim and ensuring she doesn't miss another court date.

[DavidH]

I do wish/hope that the accommodations would not be the same given to actual criminals. It still feels like adding salt to the wound.

They did offer house arrest in a foster home, which is roughly identical to the living situation she'd have anyway, but that might just be because she's a minor.

No they didn't.

My bad; I confused the girl's lawyer's statement with those of the prosecutor. For what it's worth, I still agree that house arrest would be a good compromise between not unnecessarily harming the victim and ensuring she doesn't miss another court date.

I agree with you. I don't think any of us are saying that jail was the correct course of action. We're all just saying that she can, should, and will be compelled to testify. They should have thought of a better way to get her to do that than jail (although people are jailed all the time for refusing to testify).

[omgryebread]

So they found DNA evidence on her. That sex occurred isn't in question. It does mean the defense gets to question consent though. You get to sit in a courtroom staring at a guy who raped you with a giant swastika on his chest while his lawyer says you wanted to have sex with him? You wouldn't run away?

Anyway, she's been released with a GPS tracker, which I admit is probably a decent compromise between need to convict and need to not traumatize the already traumatized. I still don't like it, and think video testimony should be allowable in rape and probably some other cases like aggravated assault. (Even allow the lawyer for the defendant or some other surrogate appointed by the defendant to cross-examine without the defendant present.) The fact she went to jail at all is still inexcusable, even if they did release her.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/17/us/california-teenager-held-to-ensure-testimony-in-rape-case-is-released.html?src=recg#

[Heisenberg]

What's the point, or benefit, of encouraging people to report rapes if they don't intend to testify?

Benefit to the victim is that she can get counseling and support which would be unavailable to victims who don't report. (Similar to how having a police report of a crime is helpful sometimes even if the criminal is not caught).

Benefit to society is that the police have more information on alleged rapists. For instance, if the attacker was targeting a certain demographic or area, it would make it easier for police to find someone who WOULD testify.

[Iulus Cofield]

You guys don't think it might discourage more people from coming forward and reporting their rape at all if they know they'll be forced to testify, and jailed if they don't?

The problem with this is that if the prosecution believes they can prove rape occurred without the alleged victim's testimony (probably because of very strong physical evidence, such as semen combined with injuries consistent with a struggle), then they would be willing to have the alleged victim not testify. The defense might still demand the victim's testimony, but if the prosecution says they don't want to cross-examine, that testimony can be submitted as a written statement. So this only discourages in cases where the alleged victim knows, or at least should be informed before charges are filed, that whether or not a conviction even has a chance of being made is if they appear on the stand. So the instances where a victim would be discouraged by this are also the instances where a conviction can not reasonably be secured without their testimony and the end result is that the rapist goes free either way.

This situation sucks in pretty much every outcome.

[setzer777]

Regarding cross-examining without the defendant present - what if they choose to represent themselves?

[sourmìlk]

That's potentially problematic, and I don't at the moment have a solution, but encountering a problem getting a victim to testify only when the defendant is representing himself is already a better outcome than encountering a problem getting a victim to testify always.

[mike-l]

Just to clarify, here in Canada the Crown absolutely can compel pretty much anyone to testify. Youth (under 14) can get out of it by refusing to promise to tell the truth (they aren't made to swear an oath). There are some other exceptions such as mental inability to comprehend the questions or recall events. But generally anyone who can observe, recall, and communicate is considered competent and compellable.

That's not to say that the crown must compel an unwilling witness. Usually when this occurs the Crown drops the charges as even if they do force the victim to testify, them being uncooperative makes the case pretty shaky. But it definitely does happen that victims of sexual assaults are forced to testify against their will here in Canada.

[Heisenberg]

That's the problem. Regardless of whether or not it should be legal to drag a 17-year old rape victim into the courtroom to face her rapist, it's not likely to help your case. The victim can be unhelpful, the victim can lie, the victim can refuse to speak.

So if the prosecutors have gotten themselves into a position where there only options are: (1) Imprison the victim and force her to take the stand against her will, thus risking her noncompliance ruining the case or (2) Let the victim avoid taking the stand, ruining the case, then the prosecution has fucked up.

Next time, they should make sure their witnesses are willing to testify and likely to be in the same state before they bring a case to trial. Jailing your victim is cold-hearted, disturbingly punitive, and not likely to actually help your case.

[Panonadin]

Can we please get past the "Shes being jailed for being raped" nonsense? She is being jailed for not showing up to testify in court on multiple occasions.

I feel like she has an obligation to do so, and I don't feel like it should prevent someone else from coming forward about being raped. Is there anyway that she can testify and not have to face the actual rapist? I'm not 100% familiar with how things of that nature go, but I'm sure there is some level of protection that can be offered. Can a court case proceed with just a sworn statement and without cross examination?

She is one of the few things standing between an accused rapist walking free and possibly raping again, I think thats reason enough to bring her in*.

*This opinion is based soley on the assumption she agreed to testify.

[setzer777]

I'm fairly sure that the defense always has the right to cross-examine witnesses.

[Chen]

I'm fairly sure that the defense always has the right to cross-examine witnesses.

Yes I believe this is stated in the 6th amendment (US of course).

What's not clear to me in this case is whether or not the victim agreed to testify in the first place. If the prosecution was told "Yes I will testify" and as such decided to proceed with the case but she later changed her mind, I can see why they might force her to testify. If she didn't agree in the first place I would hope that they didn't go through with the case anyway and THEN force her to testify.

[mike-l]

There's not nearly enough information in the article to come to an informed conclusion. If the victim never spoke to police, never agreed to testify, and then was jailed for not doing so, that would fall pretty clearly on the 'wtfiswrongwiththejusticesystem' side.

If the victim reported the crime, worked with prosecutors, agreed to testify, prepared a testimony, and then bailed day of, not by changing her mind but by physically running away, twice, then that certainly sounds like contempt of court to me.

The truth probably lies somewhere in between.