« Those people who love Mommy Sheehan? | Main | Early Christmas Holiday Present for CA legislators »

December 04, 2005

'Judge' rapes victim all over again ...

Some things you read just make you stare at the screen in disbelief. This is one of them.

BEAVERTON -- A municipal judge found a 19-year-old woman guilty Friday of filing a false police report after she said she was raped by three young men.

Even though the woman never said she lied or recanted her story, city prosecutors say they took the unusual step of filing charges against her because of the seriousness of her accusations.

Certainly false reports of rape can be made, and have been. Rare, but not unknown. But in this instance we are dealing with an extraordinary chain of events here that boggle the mind. Especially outregeous is the Judge's own "reasoning":
After a day-and-a-half trial, Municipal Judge Peter A. Ackerman on Friday convicted the woman of filing a false police report, a class-C misdemeanor. Ackerman explained his decision, saying there were many inconsistencies in the stories of the four, but that he found the young men to be more credible. He also said he relied on the testimony of a Beaverton police detective and the woman's friends who said she did not act traumatized in the days following the incident.
The judge based his decision solely on the credibility of the participants when he even noted they all had inconsistencies in their testimony? Where is the level of 'reasonable' doubt? What about forensics? What did the rapekit and exam show?

And where, dear GOD, is it written that assault victims must act in a certain manner?

First off, WHY did the prosecuters go after her? This meally-mouth statement ...

The bottom line, [Ted Naemura, the assistant city attorney who prosecuted the case] said, is that people can't use the criminal justice system to further their own ends.
... is insulting. Sure, but what was this woman's motives? The prosecutor is alleging she had a reason to send these people to jail. What was it, schmuck?

And let's not let her own attorney off the hook. Why Jeff Napoli did not request a jury trial in this situation absolutely has me baffled.

I will say one thing. While Napoli is appealing the case, Oregonians should be looking into either recalling Judge Ackerman or setting up a campaign fund to defeat him next election.

Unfuckingbelievable!

(h/t Lauren at Feministe)

Posted by Darleen at December 4, 2005 08:51 AM

Comments

Neil

By implication, you want to show me where "conservatives" are supportive of RAPISTS?

Posted by: Darleen at December 5, 2005 08:03 AM

this has nothing to do with conservative or liberal, rather ethics and common sense. Although, I'll admit the left seems to lack both of those qualities on a regular basis.

Posted by: caltechgirl at December 5, 2005 12:19 PM

*sigh*
Darleen, I didn't imply that. Conservatives do tend to be quieter than liberals on issues like this, and that's all.

Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf at December 8, 2005 07:49 PM