Justice, Mercy, Rape, and the Honor Code

[MiserereNobis]

13 minutes ago, Sleeper Cell said:

[emphasis added]

As a trained volunteer disaster service worker, I was taught that it was necessary for us to try to remove emotion from our response to a tragedy.  For starters, allowing emotion to cloud our judgment would defeat the very purpose of mass casualty triage, possibly resulting in even more deaths.   

I certainly would never have told you or your fellow teachers that you shouldn’t sob or otherwise get emotional.  But, presumably, they were not acting as first responders -- at least not at that particular time.  

I would suggest that it is probably desirable for those who are trying to find ways to prevent (or reduce the likelihood of) a similar tragedy to also try to avoid allowing emotion to cloud their judgment.   

I applaud your volunteerism, especially since it is as a disaster service worker.  Since the Sandy Hook shooting affected me so profoundly, I did a lot of reading and research on it and it seemed pretty universal that first responders there had terrible experiences resulting in PTSD.  I stand in awe of anyone who puts themselves in such a situation for the better good of us all.  Thank you.

None of us on this board are first responders to a rape charge at BYU.  It is perfectly human and perfectly acceptable for us to have emotional responses to that.  While I agree that first responders need to set aside emotions in order to fulfill their jobs, that should in no way be a standard for all humans.  Humans without emotional responses are not humans.  God made us with emotions, so when we become aware of a tragedy and weep for it, we are simply doing what God does -- weep over tragedy, whether of a sparrow or of His own Son.

Edited April 16, 2016 by MiserereNobis

[Stargazer]

33 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

 

I'm not quite sure what to say to this... if you don't think there are grey areas in the application of justice, then we are all eternally screwed.  Even our totally flawed human based system of justice has mitigating factors.  If reporting a rapist isn't a mitigating factor against being out past curfew, I don't know what is.

Two points come to mind:

1) are you against prosecutors making deals with defendants in order to get information and/or testimony out of them to prosecute a greater criminal or crime?  This is pretty standard procedure in criminal law, you know...

2) do you want God to judge all of us in the black and white paradigm you've suggested? Christ did clearly state that with what judgement we judge, we shall be judged.

There are no grey areas in Divine justice..  If a person steals, then that person has placed himself at odds with God.  Even if stealing was necessary to prevent starvation.  And since we all sin, we all fall short of the glory of God, and we are all screwed.  Except that God has provided a Savior, Christ the Lord.  

1) No.  Is this what is going on here?  And making deals with defendants does not remove their guilt.  No deal is being made here; why do you bring it up?

2) The scripture refers to hypocrisy.  If I judge someone for theft, and then I steal, my own judgement condemns me.  I should be judged by the same terms as I judge others.  I am content to let it be so.  

But the honor code violation still exists, regardless of the rape.  It's independent of the rape.  If the rape hadn't occurred, the honor code violation would still have existed.  You want the honor code violation to be ignored because of the rape, since the woman has, in your view, been punished enough. OK, I'm not an implacable unfeeling disciplinarian -- I might even agree with you that she's had enough of a bad experience.  But let's look over the range of situations.  If the honor code violation had been getting drunk, and in staggering around the drunk were to step on a nail and need a tetanus shot, would you say that he had been punished enough? If the honor code violation had been getting drunk, and in the subsequent car wreck a guy were to break his arm, would you say that he had been punished enough? If the honor code violation had been mainlining heroin and an overdose put the person into the hospital, would you still say the person had been punished enough?  If the honor code violation had been a rape entirely not involving alcohol, but the woman's boyfriend had beat the perp to an inch of his life and he's in the hospital ICU, would you still say the perp had been punished enough?  If the honor code violation been an armed robbery of a bank, and the perp managed to crash his car in the subsequent police pursuit and in his resistance to capture he was shot by the police and is in the ICU, would you still say the perp had been punished enough?

With respect to the matter of already being punished enough, where is the line to be drawn?  In human justice, they always try to frame laws so as to eliminate as much ambiguity as possible.  There's always some ambiguity, but the less the better.  In the above situations, if the woman who was drunk was raped and the honor code violation were to be waived because she had been punished enough, the guy who had to have the tetanus shot would definitely be coming to the table claiming unequal application of the law if his tetanus shot couldn't be considered "enough punishment."  And that is why judges overturn not just cases, but laws.  Perhaps the Honor Code should be reworked to be more reasonable, or perhaps eliminated entirely.  But if it is going to be on the books at all, everyone who is involved with it must stand equally responsible for adhering to it.

 

 

 

 

[strappinglad]

35 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

No, you did not read it correctly.  The charges of rape have not been dropped.  So everything you say and insinuate here is false.

There was a charge against the rape defendant and a sheriff's deputy of retaliating against a witness.  That charge was brought when the lead prosecutor realized that the case report had been given by the perpetrator's friend (the sheriff's deputy) to the honor code office at BYU.  His superior had the charge dismissed without prejudice (which means they could refile the charge, but they have said they are not going to).  This is probably what you are thinking of.

The rape charge still stands, especially due to the recorded phone call.

Perhaps you should consider why you were so quick to jump to all the things you said after your first sentence since none of it is true.  Read this for more info: http://www.sltrib.com/home/3773615-155/prosecutor-says-rape-case-is-threatened

So you are saying that the rapist is now convicted and that there were improprieties with law enforcement during the investigation. Sorry, my statement still stands. People have convicted the alleged prep and errors of proper investigative procedure have been made and lawyers should have been consulted before any statements were made to any authority. Now, If there is a signed confession in hand then I will amend SOME of what I said. Most of what I said applies to any case but especially highly charged ones. I am reasonably sure that any lawyer on this forum will give any client the same advice. Say nothing until legal advice is available. It is obvious in this case that the ' victim' should have been more careful of what she said and to whom.  Now some here are going to say that I think she should not have reported the crime. Not at all, but don't unintentionally provide grounds for possible dismissal of charges.

Edited April 16, 2016 by strappinglad

[MiserereNobis]

33 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

So you are saying that the rapist is now convicted and that there were improprieties with law enforcement during the investigation. Sorry, my statement still stands. People have convicted the alleged prep and errors of proper investigative procedure have been made and lawyers should have been consulted before any statements were made to any authority. Now, If there is a signed confession in hand then I will amend SOME of what I said. Most of what I said applies to any case but especially highly charged ones. I am reasonably sure that any lawyer on this forum will give any client the same advice. Say nothing until legal advice is available. It is obvious in this case that the ' victim' should have been more careful of what she said and to whom.  Now some here are going to say that I think she should not have reported the crime. Not at all, but don't unintentionally provide grounds for possible dismissal of charges.

 

You have no idea what you are talking about, seriously... you should read the article I linked.  You can even do a google news search -- there are a lot of news articles on this situation.  Educate yourself on what is going on before you make such ridiculous statements.  You have obviously misunderstood the situation, and twice now!,  so you should do your own research into it and refrain from speaking on it until you have at least the most basic outline of what has happened.

And please avoid the blatant victim blaming.  It certainly makes you look quite silly when you've got all the facts wrong.

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

There are no grey areas in Divine justice..

Deo gratias (thank God!) for Divine mercy, which, thanks to Christ, is the current paradigm.  Bringing up God's justice as being black and white totally disregards Jesus Christ.

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

1) No.  Is this what is going on here?  And making deals with defendants does not remove their guilt.  No deal is being made here; why do you bring it up?

The push is that the Honor Code Office grants amnesty to rape victims for any honor code infractions that occurred immediately prior to or during the rape.  So, the obvious analogy is when prosecutors offer immunity to people to testify against a greater crime.  Rape is the greater crime, so shouldn't the Honor Code Office offer amnesty to those who testify against it?  The victims should have amnesty for an infraction of the honor code in order to out a rapist in the community.

 

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

2) The scripture refers to hypocrisy.  If I judge someone for theft, and then I steal, my own judgement condemns me.  I should be judged by the same terms as I judge others.  I am content to let it be so.  

So if I steal but I don't judge others for stealing then I am free of God's judgement?  So if I say no action is wrong then I won't be judged at all?

This sounds like wild self-justification to me.  Whatever I think is right, as long as I am consistent (not a hypocrite).

Is this what you mean?

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

If the honor code violation had been getting drunk, and in staggering around the drunk were to step on a nail and need a tetanus shot, would you say that he had been punished enough? If the honor code violation had been getting drunk, and in the subsequent car wreck a guy were to break his arm, would you say that he had been punished enough? If the honor code violation had been mainlining heroin and an overdose put the person into the hospital, would you still say the person had been punished enough?  If the honor code violation had been a rape entirely not involving alcohol, but the woman's boyfriend had beat the perp to an inch of his life and he's in the hospital ICU, would you still say the perp had been punished enough?  If the honor code violation been an armed robbery of a bank, and the perp managed to crash his car in the subsequent police pursuit and in his resistance to capture he was shot by the police and is in the ICU, would you still say the perp had been punished enough?

Wow.  Do you see how none of these examples apply to a person being raped?  Every single one (every single one!!) has the negative consequence firmly linked to the actions of the person receiving the negative consequence.  You have just unequivocally showed that you believe a rape victim is responsible for his or her rape.

Seriously, go through each example and identify who the rape victim would be in it.  It's always the person who screwed up and did something bad.

I wonder if some of the Romans ever said about the early Christian matyrs: "well, they need to just take responsibility for their choice to break the law and not burn incense to Caeser.  If they would have just followed the rules, we wouldn't have to have thrown them to the lions for sport.  It's just common sense, after all.  We're not to blame.  Nero, why don't you pull out that fiddle and play us a tune, eh?"

Analogies more often than not grow quite tiresome in a discussion of this type.

 

Edited April 16, 2016 by MiserereNobis

[Calm]

3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

 

The grey areas are hard to deal with, for sure.  But this is certainly not one of them.

There is no need for justice to be imposed first thing either, especially in grey areas.  BYU is not a law enforcement institution with laws on the books and no options for first approaches to be examining with the attitude as what woud be most merciful for this person.  Rather than investigate the victim, counsel the victim.  If it turns out in the counseling s/he confesses to honor code violations, then see how the individual feels about them now.  Is it something he or she continues to desire to do?  If so, deal with that, find out why there is a need to violate the code, deal with and maybe even resolve the need and perhaps a miracle of healing may take place.  I find that a worthwhile use of BYU space and resources......changing a heart, saving a soul, helping a student put her/his life in order in the last stages of youth.  They likely won't all turn out to desire to cooperate that way and for those who don't want to change where it is needed to abide by the HC and see no reason to do so, not even to staying school, then the rest of the semester can be used in helping them transfer to another school.

[Tacenda]

Interview with three BYU women rape survivors.

http://www.good4utah.com/news/local-news/sexual-assault-victims-feel-revictimized-by-byu-honor-code

 

[CV75]

9 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

How can you even equate a woman's actions of drinking, or being in the wrong part of town, or wearing something sexy, or whatever else you think she did... how can you equate that with rape?

I don't think they can be equated, which is why I don’t see how one’s innocence and victimization in a criminal circumstance waives the consequences of his dishonorable behavior in a concurrent ethical circumstance.

The justice system punishes perpetrator and compensates/recompenses the victim for the crime through the justice system; other community systems come into play to heal the victim and rehabilitate the perpetrator. Non-government systems (families, communities, agencies, religion, etc.) come into play as well. Dishonorable or unethical behavior in addition to the crime itself is addressed by whatever professional or institutional governing system applies to the situation.

It is interesting that a victim would have the wherewithal to fight the consequences of unethical behavior in light of the immediate need to address the violent abuse of life, limb and psyche and their far more severe and unmerited consequences. I suppose it is one way to cope (holding to that which was within one’s control), which is understandable.

I think that all involved need to be treated with civility and due process at the very least, and victims of crime with a measure of empathy and compassion in managing any related ethical case on their part. I think the BYU processes allow this, and the individual knowledge, skills and ability of the administrators can make a big difference in what valuable life lessons the student can learn from their infractions.

[bluebell]

10 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I don't get you.  Jesus was indeed responsible for being in Jerusalem, he made a choice.  He didn't have to be there.  He knew what was going to happen if he showed up, and he showed up.  I for one am glad he did.

You seem to truly not understand the difference between responsibility and guilt.  Guilt is the result of sin.  Responsibility is the result of choice.  

And the distinction is very relevant.

You didn't say that Jesus is responsible for being in Jerusalem, your logic is that Jesus is responsible for being crucified.  And the reason that you are the first believer to ever bring that up (though it's technically true) is because it's not at all relevant to His crucifixion.  

And you're right, i don't understand the difference between responsibility and guilt because it's a worthless distinction.  What does it matter if the Savior was responsible for His crucifixion?  

After a rape has happened, what does it matter if the girl is responsible for it?  

That's the question i would like answered.

Quote

It's like MiserereNobis saying: "...can't you see that a rape is violating one of the most sacred and important things a human has?"  And of course I see it!  I am totally onboard with it.  

The reason that MN doesn't believe that you can see it is because if you really did, you would do absolutely nothing to add to that pain.  That fact that you are arguing semantics and theory regardless of knowing that your words will further devastate any rape victim (of which i'm sure there are some on this board), shows that you don't get it.

[carbon dioxide]

12 hours ago, bsjkki said:

From my vast experience watching Law and Order, I think this happens all the time.  It's called immunity.  The cops would rather have her testify against thief/rapist than prosecute her too.

I am not sure God every grants immunity to a witness so they can testify against someone else.  God already knows the answers of who is guilty and innocent.

[mtomm]

The whole point of what God would is irrelevant because BYU is not GOD but is actually a part of the fallen world with fallen people. Give me a freaking break.  Let let's rapists go free because girls break the honor code.  In what world does that make sense?  

How come when we are talking about apostles and prophets we are always supposed to give them the benefits the doubt and never question their judgement or comments but when it comes to BYU co-eds we expect perfection??

[busybee]

13 hours ago, Stargazer said:

A straw man, I am sorry to say.  I say this because I haven't seen anyone equating rape with drinking alcohol.  

Bluebell was giving me the once-over for implying that the young woman was responsible for placing herself in a situation where she was helpless in the face of the clearly evil actor who raped her.  It's as if being victimized removes all responsibility for placing oneself in the situation.  It is something growing out of pure emotion, apparently, and the forest is invisible because of the trees.

I wrote the following while the thread was being locked:

 

If it's any consolation, i completely understand and agree with what you are saying.

[busybee]

12 hours ago, strappinglad said:

I watched a video the other day of people at a Safari park in (Africa?). A bunch of cars had stopped on the road and were watching a big male lion as he lay on the road. In one car there were a couple of kids who decided to roll down the back window and take pictures of the lion which was about 15 ft. away. The lion got increasingly irritated. Eventually it raised up and moved toward the car. The lion could easily have reached into the car and injured or killed one or both of the children. Had he done so, whose responsibility would it have been? Well, the lion of course. No one else had any responsibility, but we know who the family's lawyer would have gone after. Right?

How can you say it is the lion's responsibility? It is an animal. Please say you were being sarcastic. All responsible Safari Parks in Africa tell people to keep their windows closed. And any parent with half a brain cell would have told their children to close the window with lions so close to the vehicle. 

[MorningStar]

I have mixed feelings about this.  I don't want a rapist to go free because the victim is afraid to say anything due to her rape happening while violating the honor code.  On the other hand, when I was living in BYU approved housing, I had a couple roommates who drove me nuts with their inviting their boyfriends into our shared bedroom.  One girl in particular had multiple guys over and they did extremely inappropriate things, then later told me one of the boys raped her while they were making out naked.  She didn't actually say the word "no" and when he suggested it, she responded by doing what he had just suggested she do.  She told me, "He didn't ask permission, so it was rape." She also claimed her old boyfriend raped her, again because he didn't ask permission.  Yet she went along with it multiple times and called it rape.  I asked, "Did you actually tell him no?"  "No, I was scared to tell him no."  If she had been truly raped while breaking the honor code and it came out that she had had four boys over to our apartment and got naked with them, should BYU ignore that? 

I think the wise thing to do would be to put the girl on probation when it comes to her enrollment.  If BYU matters to her that much, then she won't break the honor code again.  She can have her rapist charged while not getting kicked out of the school.  But I also don't want girls crying "rape" if they get caught breaking the honor code. 

[Tacenda]

6 minutes ago, MorningStar said:

I have mixed feelings about this.  I don't want a rapist to go free because the victim is afraid to say anything due to her rape happening while violating the honor code.  On the other hand, when I was living in BYU approved housing, I had a couple roommates who drove me nuts with their inviting their boyfriends into our shared bedroom.  One girl in particular had multiple guys over and they did extremely inappropriate things, then later told me one of the boys raped her while they were making out naked.  She didn't actually say the word "no" and when he suggested it, she responded by doing what he had just suggested she do.  She told me, "He didn't ask permission, so it was rape." She also claimed her old boyfriend raped her, again because he didn't ask permission.  Yet she went along with it multiple times and called it rape.  I asked, "Did you actually tell him no?"  "No, I was scared to tell him no."  If she had been truly raped while breaking the honor code and it came out that she had had four boys over to our apartment and got naked with them, should BYU ignore that? 

I think the wise thing to do would be to put the girl on probation when it comes to her enrollment.  If BYU matters to her that much, then she won't break the honor code again.  She can have her rapist charged while not getting kicked out of the school.  But I also don't want girls crying "rape" if they get caught breaking the honor code. 

I agree with this also.  But there is a scenario out there that some girls out there have been sexually abused while very young and that that's just what they think love is.  Or they don't deserve any better.  Maybe Blue Dreams can add something.  

I just think we need to strengthen our prose of men showing respect to women.  Not just the women need to be the example.  Both need to be addressed, I guess they have many times, I've only served in the Young Women's program once early in my marriage, so I've no idea what the lessons are.  I wonder if lessons are straightforward enough?  But I see why the Honor Code is the way it is.  But still think if a person is raped, that the case shouldn't be in any way hindered by BYU, which from what I've read they don't.  But still on the fence about that.  I guess it's the mentality of the thing too.  Maybe the feeling that they'll have to be proven innocent vs. guilty. 

 

[JulieM]

28 minutes ago, MorningStar said:

I have mixed feelings about this.  I don't want a rapist to go free because the victim is afraid to say anything due to her rape happening while violating the honor code.  On the other hand, when I was living in BYU approved housing, I had a couple roommates who drove me nuts with their inviting their boyfriends into our shared bedroom.  One girl in particular had multiple guys over and they did extremely inappropriate things, then later told me one of the boys raped her while they were making out naked.  She didn't actually say the word "no" and when he suggested it, she responded by doing what he had just suggested she do.  She told me, "He didn't ask permission, so it was rape." She also claimed her old boyfriend raped her, again because he didn't ask permission.  Yet she went along with it multiple times and called it rape.  I asked, "Did you actually tell him no?"  "No, I was scared to tell him no."  If she had been truly raped while breaking the honor code and it came out that she had had four boys over to our apartment and got naked with them, should BYU ignore that? 

From what you described above, there was no rape committed and this was consensual sex.  She never said "no" or asked the guys to stop or leave.

That is quite different than the cases being discussed here and I agree it should be handled differently. 

I hope she never filed any charges (legally) against them because that would have been wrong, in my opinion.

Edited April 16, 2016 by JulieM

[mtomm]

19 minutes ago, JulieM said:

From what you described above, there was no rape committed and this was consensual sex.  She never said "no" or asked the guys to stop or leave.

That is quite different than the cases being discussed here and I agree it should be handled differently. 

What is consent?  Is consent not saying no? 

This is not an argumentative question, but very sincere. 

When does a guy know it's okay? I guess the assumption is everything is okay till she says stop or no.  

I hope it is shifting from this current attitude  to nothing is okay until consent is given. 

[carbon dioxide]

2 hours ago, mtomm said:

The whole point of what God would is irrelevant because BYU is not GOD but is actually a part of the fallen world with fallen people. Give me a freaking break.  Let let's rapists go free because girls break the honor code.  In what world does that make sense?  

Who is trying to let the rapist go free?  I never read anyone suggest that.

[JulieM]

17 minutes ago, mtomm said:

What is consent?  Is consent not saying no? 

This is not an argumentative question, but very sincere. 

When does a guy know it's okay? I guess the assumption is everything is okay till she says stop or no.  

I hope it is shifting from this current attitude  to nothing is okay until consent is given. 

Well, from what was described above, it appeared to me that the guys had no way of knowing that she wasn't fully willing to have sex.  They can't read her mind.  

I get what you're asking, but if she'd wanted them to stop, she should have spoken up and said something like, "no further" or "I want you to stop or leave" rather than just being willing to go along and do "what he suggested she do".

Now if she felt forced or threatened in any way, that's different.

Maybe we need more details before we judge here.

Edited April 16, 2016 by JulieM

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, MorningStar said:

I have mixed feelings about this.  I don't want a rapist to go free because the victim is afraid to say anything due to her rape happening while violating the honor code.  On the other hand, when I was living in BYU approved housing, I had a couple roommates who drove me nuts with their inviting their boyfriends into our shared bedroom.  One girl in particular had multiple guys over and they did extremely inappropriate things, then later told me one of the boys raped her while they were making out naked.  She didn't actually say the word "no" and when he suggested it, she responded by doing what he had just suggested she do.  She told me, "He didn't ask permission, so it was rape." She also claimed her old boyfriend raped her, again because he didn't ask permission.  Yet she went along with it multiple times and called it rape.  I asked, "Did you actually tell him no?"  "No, I was scared to tell him no." 

The part I put in bold above is what I think is important to know.   Why was she scared?  Was she afraid because she was in physical danger?  Was she afraid he'd break up with her if she stopped him?  What was she afraid of?

1 hour ago, MorningStar said:

If she had been truly raped while breaking the honor code and it came out that she had had four boys over to our apartment and got naked with them, should BYU ignore that? 

This is different and changes things.  If she was "truly raped", then she should press charges, have the guy arrested, and then be able to feel safe that any information she gives the police will remain confidential as part of the investigation.

.

Edited April 16, 2016 by ALarson

[Danzo]

I am kinda getting tired of people saying that the victim has no responsibilities.

I remember a trial that I was a juror on, The husband was accused of abusing the wife.

Wife would not testify against him, and testified of his innocence. There were no other witnesses of the event. There was some circumstantial evidence (she had injuries)  and he had a history of abuse convictions.

Everyone on the jury thought that he probably did it.  but since the victim would not testify against him (and testified for him), we all agreed that there was reasonable doubt and we could not convict.

We all thought it was rather sad.

Had the victim taken just a little responsibility and testified, we probably could have convicted him.

 

 

 

[Jeanne]

14 hours ago, bsjkki said:

In a new Trib article and the Deseret News article, it is explained that BYU will not answer the question whether the Title IX office broke the law when reporting possible honor code violations to the HC office that were discovered during the sexual assault investigations.  The title IX officer is prohibited from having conflicts of interest. 

http://knowyourix.org/title-ix/title-ix-in-detail/

If BYU broke the law should they be punished and held accountable for every violation of a students rights under federal law?  I'm no lawyer so if you know more, please share.

I am not a lawyer either but I do agree.   There is plenty of accountability that can be shared here.

[bluebell]

23 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I am kinda getting tired of people saying that the victim has no responsibilities.

I remember a trial that I was a juror on, The husband was accused of abusing the wife.

Wife would not testify against him, and testified of his innocence. There were no other witnesses of the event. There was some circumstantial evidence (she had injuries)  and he had a history of abuse convictions.

Everyone on the jury thought that he probably did it.  but since the victim would not testify against him (and testified for him), we all agreed that there was reasonable doubt and we could not convict.

We all thought it was rather sad.

Had the victim taken just a little responsibility and testified, we probably could have convicted him.

 

 

 

Since the rape victim IS taking the responsibility to testify, I'm unsure of your point. 

How is your example relevant to the claim that the rape victim is responsible for her rape?  I sincerely don't understand. 

[strappinglad]

59 minutes ago, ALarson said:

This is different and changes things.  If she was "truly raped", then she should press charges, have the guy arrested, and then be able to feel safe that any information she gives the police will remain confidential as part of the investigation.

Such an assumption of privacy has long been removed by twitter and facebook and e-mails. In  a trial, all of the info and personal secrets will come out. For a recent example of the devastating effect such revelations have on the prosecution's case google Jian Ghomeshi and his trial.

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I am kinda getting tired of people saying that the victim has no responsibilities.

I remember a trial that I was a juror on, The husband was accused of abusing the wife.

Wife would not testify against him, and testified of his innocence. There were no other witnesses of the event. There was some circumstantial evidence (she had injuries)  and he had a history of abuse convictions.

Everyone on the jury thought that he probably did it.  but since the victim would not testify against him (and testified for him), we all agreed that there was reasonable doubt and we could not convict.

We all thought it was rather sad.

Had the victim taken just a little responsibility and testified, we probably could have convicted him.

 

 

 

Emotional disabililtycan be as crippling and limiting as mental disability.