Teen's Rape Charges Dropped Because Victim Kills Self

[FlyingTrue]

An 18-year-old high school student raped a 14-year-old girl two months ago, she also attended the same school he did. Unable to cope with the emotional stress, sadly she killed herself. The court's reaction to the suicide was to drop the charges!
http://www.wxyz.com/dpp/news/region/...akes-own-life-

[Doodle.]

Wow :| I feel terrible for her mother :/ What scum that boy is

[TigerTank77]

First of all, they must not have had any evidence other than her verbal testimony.

Second of all, seeing as how he was not convicted, he is therefor presumed innocent.

The bias in this article is horrible.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

First of all, they must not have had any evidence other than her verbal testimony.

Second of all, seeing as how he was not convicted, he is therefor presumed innocent.

The bias in this article is horrible.

Were it hinging solely on her testimony, the case would not have got to trial. "He says, she says" is no grounds on which to base a criminal prosecution, and there would have been police reports, medical evidence and other elements which could have been brought in instead. The only grounds I can think of which would be valid for dismissing the case would be the lack of ability to cross-examine the victim, but that would have been heavily curtailed given her age and in any event would not have been critical to the case. I am struggling to comprehend the logic behind this decision aside from expediency.

It should also be noted there is still the possibility of action being pursued in the civil courts, so speculation on his culpability or otherwise is best left until all avenues are exhausted. It is not fair on either party to do so in the meantime.

[forfrosne]

Male hate at it's worst. Men are presumed rapists until they prove otherwise. It's terrible and sad that the girl killed herself, but this man is not a rapist until they can prove it happened. They cannot, so he is not a rapist.

Some people fail to grasp the law..

[thebigmole]

Originally Posted by Matthew

Male hate at it's worst. Men are presumed rapists until they prove otherwise. It's terrible and sad that the girl killed herself, but this man is not a rapist until they can prove it happened. They cannot, so he is not a rapist.

Some people fail to grasp the law..

I'm sorry but that's total crap. A lot of women don't report their rapes, but just because it hasn't been recognized by the law doesn't make them have been any less raped, or their rapist and less of a rapist. If you force someone to have sex then you are a rapist whether it hasn't been said in a court of law or not. Something caused this girl to kill herself. Obviously there was enough evidence to get him indited. So yeah, he's a rapist whether the law says he is or not, if he did rape her.

[forfrosne]

Originally Posted by thebigmole

I'm sorry but that's total cr*p. A lot of women don't report their rapes, but just because it hasn't been recognized by the law doesn't make them have been any less raped, or their rapist and less of a rapist. If you force someone to have sex then you are a rapist whether it hasn't been said in a court of law or not. Something caused this girl to kill herself. Obviously there was enough evidence to get him indited. So yeah, he's a rapist whether the law says he is or not, if he did rape her.

And you cannot prove that he did, so he is not a rapist.

[thebigmole]

Originally Posted by Matthew

And you cannot prove that he did, so he is not a rapist.

If he did it then he is a rapist whether it's proven in a court of law or not.

[forfrosne]

Originally Posted by thebigmole

If he did it then he is a rapist whether it's proven in a court of law or not.

Sure, I agree with you. Problem is, all people are innocent until proven guilty, and seeing as you cannot prove that this man is a rapist, I do not believe he is one.

[Guile]

To be technical he is over the age of 18 and her being a minor makes this a case of statutory rape whether or not she consented to it. So yes, he is a rapist if he had sex with her and if any sort of intimate activity happened between them he is a child molester. But I am just being technical here.

[TigerTank77]

Originally Posted by thebigmole

If he did it then he is a rapist whether it's proven in a court of law or not.

So a woman has never lied about being raped in order to screw someone over, ever?

You know what probably happened? She got dolled up in order to look older, lied about her age, they did it, someone she knew found out, she cries rape to try and preserve her image.

However, that's speculation.

Unfortunately, despite how the law should work, all a woman has to do is cry "rape", and she can ruin a guy's entire life.

You have already convicted this guy in your head. That's not fair to him at all. In fact I'd go as far as to say it's sexist.

[thebigmole]

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

So a woman has never lied about being raped in order to screw someone over, ever?

You know what probably happened? She got dolled up in order to look older, lied about her age, they did it, someone she knew found out, she cries rape to try and preserve her image.

However, that's speculation.

Unfortunately, despite how the law should work, all a woman has to do is cry "rape", and she can ruin a guy's entire life.

You have already convicted this guy in your head. That's not fair to him at all. In fact I'd go as far as to say it's sexist.

You misunderstood what I said. I said if he did it, if he raped her, then it doesn't matter whether he is convicted of it or not, he is a rapist whether anyone knows he is or not. I don't know whether he did it or not, I don't know whether he's a rapist or not, but convicted or not if he did rape her he is a rapist.

And sure let's blame the victim shall we. After all if a girl dresses provocatively then she's just asking to be raped right?

You are right though, we live in a society where if someone is blamed of rape whether it's proven or not people will always think they are a rapist, unless of course it is proven without a doubt it wasn't rape. It's not right, but there's nothing we can do about it because anything we would try would just make it harder for real victims to get justice, something that is already difficult enough.

[TigerTank77]

Originally Posted by thebigmole

And sure let's blame the victim shall we. After all if a girl dresses provocatively then she's just asking to be raped right?

I did not even come close to saying that.

Also, yeah, if he did do it, he's a rapist. But repeating that over and over again implies that he is, regardless of evidence.

[thebigmole]

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

I did not even come close to saying that.

Also, yeah, if he did do it, he's a rapist. But repeating that over and over again implies that he is, regardless of evidence.

Fine. But I don't think it's completely crazy to think that he most likely is a rapist. I mean if he had sex with her then it's statutory rape whether it was consensual or not. Also if the girl wasn't raped why put herself through the process of a trial and getting harrassed at school. She killed herself for goodness sakes. Obviously something was going on. And obviously there was enough evidence supporting her claim to get charges filed against him.

[TigerTank77]

Originally Posted by thebigmole

Fine. But I don't think it's completely crazy to think that he most likely is a rapist. I mean if he had sex with her then it's statutory rape whether it was consensual or not. Also if the girl wasn't raped why put herself through the process of a trial and getting harrassed at school. She killed herself for goodness sakes. Obviously something was going on. And obviously there was enough evidence supporting her claim to get charges filed against him.

And it's this line of thinking that prevents those who have been falsely accused from leading normal lives.

I'm putting money on her suicide being the result of everyone knowing she was falsely accusing him and giving her shit for it. I'm not saying it was right if that was the case, but look at the article. The entire school is split over the whole thing. Obviously we're not getting the whole story.

The only feedback we're getting is from her mother, so of course she's the "innocent victim."

[thebigmole]

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

And it's this line of thinking that prevents those who have been falsely accused from leading normal lives.

I'm putting money on her suicide being the result of everyone knowing she was falsely accusing him and giving her shit for it. I'm not saying it was right if that was the case, but look at the article. The entire school is split over the whole thing. Obviously we're not getting the whole story.

The only feedback we're getting is from her mother, so of course she's the "innocent victim."

I'm never gonna encounter this kid. You're right though it's the world we live in and it sucks. However I have to ask why are you so bent of believing he's innocent?

You are right though we are only hearing from the mother, it would be interesting to hear what supporters of the guy have to say.

[TigerTank77]

Originally Posted by thebigmole

However I have to ask why are you so bent of believing he's innocent?

Because the article and OP are bent on believing he's guilty.

[thebigmole]

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

Because the article and OP are bent on believing he's guilty.

Well since this is the debate forum I guess that's acceptable.

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Why were the charges dropped? Even if the victim cannot testify, surely there is plenty of other evidence that can be examined that would satisfy a verdict. Perhaps the details of what he said to the victim won't be addressed because even if the parents know them, they may be considered heresay without evidence. But those aren't really necessary with all other evidence. I guess the guy could be sued civilly but I wonder, if the criminal case got dropped, would the civil case get dropped as well? I know there's a difference in the evidence accepted between the two but if there's undeniable evidence for the criminal case and that gets dropped, seems probable it'd get dropped civilly.

[emma01]

Well if he raped her and pleads guilty, then he's a rapist and should be charged, like anyone would be, regardless of whether the victim is alive or not.
If the charges are dropped, then we will never know the truth, either he is innocent, and then fair enough, he should not be charged. Or he is lying, and did rape her...either way we will never know and we can't do much about it. Let's just hope if he did do it but isn't charged, he lives a horrible horrible life knowing what he did. We can just hope that if he did do it, he will admit it.
Its really sad, I so agree, but he has to be treated like everyone else, and that is innocent until proven guilty. Maybe he didn't do it. Could have been someone else who threatened the girl that he would do something bad if she told the truth. We don't know what actually happened.

[Brandon]

I'd hate to be in that guy's shoes. There is no evidence to suggest that the 18 year old raped the 14 year old, and yet he's still called a rapist. The hostility from the mother was unnecessary. Her daughter chose to commit suicide. If she didn't, she might've been able to argue a case and convict the 18 year old. But since she killed herself, she brought that upon herself. You can't blame the guy for her actions. Because he wasn't proved guilty, the 18 year old was assumed innocent. It doesn't really matter whether the daughter killed herself or not. If you can't prove it, then it wouldn't make sense to convict him anyways. I find it absolutely hilarious how some people talk about the government being corrupt, and then turn around and want an 18 year old guy to be convicted of a crime that wasn't proven to begin with. That defeats the purpose of the justice system. You can't fight fire with fire.

[iHEAVENn]

This was on another forum I'm on strictly for mothers. The aunt of the girl posted it..
It's awful. According to the aunt, the girl had a few brothers and one of the brothers found her dead.

To the people saying this guy is "Innocent" If he was so innocent why was he creating problems for the girl at school? Why wouldn't he just leave her alone and face his trial like an INNOCENT person? There was no need for him to bully her and have others get in on it outside of the trial.

[forfrosne]

Originally Posted by iHEAVENn

This was on another forum I'm on strictly for mothers. The aunt of the girl posted it..
It's awful. According to the aunt, the girl had a few brothers and one of the brothers found her dead.

To the people saying this guy is "Innocent" If he was so innocent why was he creating problems for the girl at school? Why wouldn't he just leave her alone and face his trial like an INNOCENT person? There was no need for him to bully her and have others get in on it outside of the trial.

He is innocent because he has not been proven guilty. End of. He may have done this, done that, she may have done this, done that. It is irrelevant, because no undeniable evidence has been put forward that he is a rapist, and so should not be considered one.

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by iHEAVENn

To the people saying this guy is "Innocent" If he was so innocent why was he creating problems for the girl at school? Why wouldn't he just leave her alone and face his trial like an INNOCENT person? There was no need for him to bully her and have others get in on it outside of the trial.

I'm not sure you understand the justice system. You can't be proven innocent, but you can be proven guilty. If you aren't proven guilty, then you're assumed innocent. "Assumed" is a very crucial part because it's signifying that because he hasn't been guilty, then he's assumed innocent. That doesn't mean he is innocent. The case wasn't about bullying the woman, it's about whether or not he raped her. The bullying is almost irrelevant to the case. So don't get words twisted around and say that he's innocent. No, we assume that he's innocent because he hasn't been proven guilty. Until he actually is proven guilty, then you can't convict him for rape.

[thebigmole]

Originally Posted by Matthew

He is innocent because he has not been proven guilty. End of. He may have done this, done that, she may have done this, done that. It is irrelevant, because no undeniable evidence has been put forward that he is a rapist, and so should not be considered one.

Maybe he shouldn't be considered one by people like us that don't know for sure whether he is or not. However if he did rape her evidence or not to him and anyone who knows that he did it he's a rapist. The fact is though there are some people out there that have not been proven guilty that are certainly not innocent of their crime. Like OJ Simpson for one. Or what about people that get off on techincalities, that you know did it, but becaue of some stupid thing they get off. Or let's say I have a friend who was raped by her boyfriend, but she won't report it. He hasn't been proven guilty in the law, but to me he's a rapist end of story. Or what about people that beat their significant others that are never reported. Just because they haven't been convicted that doesn't make them a abuser.

In the mother's eyes this guy raped her daughter. All she needed was her daughter to tell her so. It doesn't matter if the courts say he is guilty or not, he will ALWAYS be guilty to her. Her reactions are certainly justifiable. She lost her daughter, she's in pain, and now the guy she feels is responsible for her daughter's death is getting off scott free. How the hell would you react? I mean are you seriously going to tell me that in that situation you would say "Oh well since the courts let you off I guess I should too. I mean my daughter told me you raped her, she killed herself over it, but you haven't been proven guilty by the law, so I guess that means you are innocent."

[forfrosne]

Originally Posted by thebigmole

Maybe he shouldn't be considered one by people like us that don't know for sure whether he is or not. However if he did rape her evidence or not to him and anyone who knows that he did it he's a rapist. The fact is though there are some people out there that have not been proven guilty that are certainly not innocent of their crime. Like OJ Simpson for one. Or what about people that get off on techincalities, that you know did it, but becaue of some stupid thing they get off. Or let's say I have a friend who was raped by her boyfriend, but she won't report it. He hasn't been proven guilty in the law, but to me he's a rapist end of story. Or what about people that beat their significant others that are never reported. Just because they haven't been convicted that doesn't make them a abuser.

In the mother's eyes this guy raped her daughter. All she needed was her daughter to tell her so. It doesn't matter if the courts say he is guilty or not, he will ALWAYS be guilty to her. Her reactions are certainly justifiable. She lost her daughter, she's in pain, and now the guy she feels is responsible for her daughter's death is getting off scott free. How the hell would you react? I mean are you seriously going to tell me that in that situation you would say "Oh well since the courts let you off I guess I should too. I mean my daughter told me you raped her, she killed herself over it, but you haven't been proven guilty by the law, so I guess that means you are innocent."

Ok, sure, if he did rape her then of course he is a rapist, technically. But seeing as we have no proof, you do not have the right to say he is a rapist. And I understand the mother's reaction, but when she calms down, I hope she realises how the law works.

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by thebigmole

In the mother's eyes this guy raped her daughter. All she needed was her daughter to tell her so. It doesn't matter if the courts say he is guilty or not, he will ALWAYS be guilty to her. Her reactions are certainly justifiable. She lost her daughter, she's in pain, and now the guy she feels is responsible for her daughter's death is getting off scott free. How the hell would you react? I mean are you seriously going to tell me that in that situation you would say "Oh well since the courts let you off I guess I should too. I mean my daughter told me you raped her, she killed herself over it, but you haven't been proven guilty by the law, so I guess that means you are innocent."

I don't think he's disagreeing that the woman should fight for what she believes in, I think he's just saying that, so far, there's no evidence to conclude that he raped her so there's no reason to convict him. If they can't find anything, which they're welcome to try because no person should get away with a crime they've committed, then there's no reason to convict them.

[TigerTank77]

Originally Posted by iHEAVENn

To the people saying this guy is "Innocent" If he was so innocent why was he creating problems for the girl at school? Why wouldn't he just leave her alone and face his trial like an INNOCENT person? There was no need for him to bully her and have others get in on it outside of the trial.

If you'd read the entire article, you'd know that the entire school is split over the whole thing, and that a half of the school is pretty much giving her crap.

Also, if someone was falsely accusing me of rape, I'd be up in their shit.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by WOW!USaidSomethingSmart!

Why were the charges dropped? Even if the victim cannot testify, surely there is plenty of other evidence that can be examined that would satisfy a verdict. Perhaps the details of what he said to the victim won't be addressed because even if the parents know them, they may be considered heresay without evidence. But those aren't really necessary with all other evidence. I guess the guy could be sued civilly but I wonder, if the criminal case got dropped, would the civil case get dropped as well? I know there's a difference in the evidence accepted between the two but if there's undeniable evidence for the criminal case and that gets dropped, seems probable it'd get dropped civilly.

The burden of proof is much lower in civil cases than in criminal - in civil cases the test is one of "balance of probabilities", thereby requiring a 51% or greater likelihood that the defendant committed the alleged act or omission. Criminal cases rely on the test of "beyond reasonable doubt", which depending upon who you speak to can be anything from 95% to 99.9% likelihood that the defendant committed the alleged act or omission. One can easily fail the "beyond reasonable doubt" test and still easily pass the "balance of probabilities" test, and indeed a lot of civil cases arise for that very reason. The criminal case being dropped will therefore not prevent a civil suit being brought, and indeed may make it easier as the offence is no longer being dealt with by another arm of the justice system.

[iHEAVENn]

Originally Posted by Brandon

I'm not sure you understand the justice system. You can't be proven innocent, but you can be proven guilty. If you aren't proven guilty, then you're assumed innocent. "Assumed" is a very crucial part because it's signifying that because he hasn't been guilty, then he's assumed innocent. That doesn't mean he is innocent. The case wasn't about bullying the woman, it's about whether or not he raped her. The bullying is almost irrelevant to the case. So don't get words twisted around and say that he's innocent. No, we assume that he's innocent because he hasn't been proven guilty. Until he actually is proven guilty, then you can't convict him for rape.

I'm not saying he should be convicted of it as they now don't have any one to testify against him. What I'm saying is, he has NOT acted like an innocent person and therefore comes across as guilty.

I under stand that if someone accused you of rape you would be upset but to bully that person in school KNOWING you have to go to trial over the case just screams guilty to me.

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by iHEAVENn

I'm not saying he should be convicted of it as they now don't have any one to testify against him. What I'm saying is, he has NOT acted like an innocent person and therefore comes across as guilty.

Different people have different interpretations of innocence. Just because he bullied and whatnot doesn't necessarily mean that there's a positive correlation between the bullying and whether or not he actually raped her. He could have bullied her for a completely different reason. It's suspicious behavior, potential evidence, but not a guaranteed "omgz...he bullied her...he must have raped her. OFF WITH HIS HEAD!" Unless they knew that he bullied her BECAUSE he raped her, then he's still assumed innocent on the rape, maybe not the bullying.

[forfrosne]

Originally Posted by iHEAVENn

I'm not saying he should be convicted of it as they now don't have any one to testify against him. What I'm saying is, he has NOT acted like an innocent person and therefore comes across as guilty.

I under stand that if someone accused you of rape you would be upset but to bully that person in school KNOWING you have to go to trial over the case just screams guilty to me.

He still is not guilty, and is then not a rapist in my eyes, and most logical people's eyes. Not all men are by default rapists.

[theatre=life]

That is stupid... you would think they would do the trail as they would if the person was unable to testify....

[iHEAVENn]

Originally Posted by Matthew

He still is not guilty, and is then not a rapist in my eyes, and most logical people's eyes. Not all men are by default rapists.

Did I say all men were rapists? No.
If I did, then I wouldn't be married.

Re-read what I said, if you can't understand it then I'm sorry. But no where in there did I say he should get charged, and no where in there did I say that every man was a rapists just because.

[Jocelyn.]

Originally Posted by Matthew

He still is not guilty, and is then not a rapist in my eyes, and most logical people's eyes. Not all men are by default rapists.

Its great when people let their government think for them.

Maybe he's not a rapist.

Or maybe he'll go brag about how he raped this chick and got away with it. Then maybe one of the girls brothers will beat the shit out of him. All hypothetical of course.

The courts are run by humans who make mistakes. Maybe it isn't on record that he is "guilty" or "not guilty", all that really matter in my eyes is if he did do it that he gets what is coming to him... as evil as that sounds.

But if he did not do it, which is a definite possibility, then I do feel sorry for him because he probably really is screwed for life since he will probably always be labeled a rapist.

[forfrosne]

Originally Posted by ForeverHis

Its great when people let their government think for them.

Maybe he's not a rapist.

Or maybe he'll go brag about how he raped this chick and got away with it. Then maybe one of the girls brothers will beat the sh** out of him. All hypothetical of course.

The courts are run by humans who make mistakes. Maybe it isn't on record that he is "guilty" or "not guilty", all that really matter in my eyes is if he did do it that he gets what is coming to him... as evil as that sounds.

But if he did not do it, which is a definite possibility, then I do feel sorry for him because he probably really is screwed for life since he will probably always be labeled a rapist.

...let the govrnment think for them? The judge decides based on the evidence presented on either side. He has not been sentenced guilty, so in my opinion, it's unfair to think of him as a rapist.
If he has done it, then it's a sad event. But it's not up to us to judge him, that's up to the courts.

[obelus]

He wasn't proven innocent or guilty. So he is neither. The case was dropped, therefore nothing was proved. Maybe he did rape her, maybe he didn't. Though the fact that she went as far as killing herself because of the after effects is a bit drastic if she was just lying and calling it rape.

Originally Posted by Matthew

Male hate at it's worst. Men are presumed rapists until they prove otherwise. It's terrible and sad that the girl killed herself, but this man is not a rapist until they can prove it happened. They cannot, so he is not a rapist.

Some people fail to grasp the law..

Just like most women are presumed whores until proven other wise? Just because something cannot be proven, does not mean it's automatically invalid.

And technically, he is over the age of 18 and had sex with a minor classifying it as statutory rape whether she consented or not. So he is therefore a rapist whether he would have been proven guilty or innocent in the end.

I guess you forgot to grasp that part of the law, huh?

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by Boobcake

And technically, he is over the age of 18 and had sex with a minor classifying it as statutory rape whether she consented or not. So he is therefore a rapist whether he would have been proven guilty or innocent in the end.

I guess you forgot to grasp that part of the law, huh?

There's no evidence to suggest that the 18 year old had sex with the 14 year old. If he DID have sex with her, then it would be statutory rape, but there was not enough sufficient evidence to suggest that he did. I've read various articles and couldn't find where he actually had sex with her, but if you can find evidence that says so...lay it on me because I sure as hell can't find it.

[MisplacedDreamer]

And why were the two allowed to attend the same school, especially with the amount of bullying going on?

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by Brandon

There's no evidence to suggest that the 18 year old had sex with the 14 year old. If he DID have sex with her, then it would be statutory rape, but there was not enough sufficient evidence to suggest that he did. I've read various articles and couldn't find where he actually had sex with her, but if you can find evidence that says so...lay it on me because I sure as hell can't find it.

To be fair the only evidence which could conclusively demonstrate that sexual intercourse took place would be medical evidence, which would only be raised at trial and not distributed to the media. It seems fair to say that such evidence or similar did exist, as I would be very surprised if the DA took the decision to prosecute based solely on the victim's testimony. That to my mind makes the decision not to proceed more of a concern, but in any event it means that such evidence is unlikely to make it into the public domain. Leaving that aside, several reports have claimed that the defendant did admit they had sex, but that it was consensual. To my mind that should still have sufficied for a charge of statutory rape; my impression is that they probably concluded it was not in the public interest to proceed with a trial, in which case they should have said so rather than what appears to have been quite a cloak-and-dagger enterprise.

As a further aside to this story, it appears further allegations of sexual misconduct have been made against the young man in question, and that he has now left the high school: http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/in...vestigate.html