Sex Crimes

Philly Mob Attacks "Person of Interest"

A mob in Philadelphia attacked a person of interest in connection with the alleged rape of an 11 year old girl after the police union offered a reward of $10,000 for bringing him in. The beating was captured on surveillance video at a local store. The man has not been charged. TalkLeft has more. From the article:

In connection with the alleged rape of an 11 year old girl, the police announced they were looking for a particular person of interest (not a suspect). Then the police union put out a reward of $10k for bringing him in by 5 PM.

Then, about an hour before the deadline, a mob grabbed the guy and beat him into critical condition (caught on surveillance video at a local bodega), such that a patrol unit had to rescue him from the mob. Then the head of the police union complimented the neighborhood for "really stepping up". And the mayor didn't even think to condemn this.

And the neighborhood gathered around the video at the bodega to cheer a replay of the mob beating.

The praise by the police union is more than a little worrisome. 

North Carolina Man Uses Craigslist To Have Wife Raped

People use Craigslist for all sorts of things, but one North Carolina man is accused of arranging the rape of his wife raped through the website. From CNN:

Police responded to the home at about 2:45 a.m. after receiving a 911 call indicating a male armed with a knife appeared in the couple's bedroom and sexually assaulted the man's wife, authorities said.

The man was present at the time of the assault, and two young children were in the home, but were unharmed and unaware of the incident, the police statement said.

"During the investigation, investigators interviewed the victim and her husband," the statement said. "Investigators became suspicious when they noticed there was no sign of forced entry to the home. Investigators also developed information that led them to note specific inconsistencies in the initial statement provided by [the man]."

But on Tuesday, police found that the man "had responded to at least two personal ads on Craigslist.com in an effort to arrange for someone to come to his home and have sex with his wife using some type of scare tactic."

While this fact pattern is extremely disturbing, it is not unprecedented. The story seems like a more modern version of a case that lots of students study in Criminal Law to understand derivative liabity between principals and accessories under the common law: Regina v. Cogan and Leak.

H/T: abyss2hope.

Student Post - "Wait Until She's Sober": Pentagon Official on Sex Crimes

The military is launching a new crusade against sexual assault. The campaign, which comes after a reported 25% increase in sexual assault in combat zones, advises soldiers to “ask her when she’s sober.” Last week the director of the Pentagon's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office, Dr. Kaye Whitley, released a statement that pitched “bystander intervention” to help curb sexual assaults. This prompted a response from Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-Rochester) expressing shock at the statement made by Dr. Whitley. From the NY Daily News:

"This woman is not in the right line of work," Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-Rochester) said of the statement last week by Dr. Kaye Whitley, director of the Pentagon's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office.

Whitley's bizarre quote came as she released the military's annual report on sex assault, which showed a 25% increase in combat zones, including 22 cases in Afghanistan and 143 in Iraq.
In pitching "bystander intervention" to curb attacks and harassment, Whitley gave this example: "If you see one of your buddies serve drinks to somebody to get them drunk, maybe what you do is step in and say 'Why don't you wait until she's sober?'

Slaughter was aghast. "I was really shocked anyone would say a thing like that," she said.
In effect, Whitley was telling the troops to "go after her when she's sober - that says she's fair game," added Slaughter, who sponsored the legislation that required the military to report annually on sex assaults and its efforts to curb them.

In a written response to The News, Whitley said Slaughter did not "hear the statement in the context of the overall prevention strategy of the Department."

The statement came from a poster in a military marketing campaign called "Our Strength is for Defending" that is aimed at prevention, Whitley said.

The poster reads: "My Strength is for Defending, so when I saw that she was drunk, I told him, 'Ask her when she's sober.' Preventing sexual assault is part of my duty."

Whitley's annual report showed that the number of sex assaults in the 1.4 million-member active-duty military increased 8% to 2,908 in the year ending in September 2008.

In the abstract I think that the idea behind this program has a good message. If a guy sees another guy (or a girl sees another girl) trying to take advantage of an intoxicated person it’s not a bad idea to go over and say, “hey buddy take it easy because I think she/he is drunk and may not know what is going on”. No one should want their fellow soldier to get into a situation where they can be accused of sexual assault, or commit sexual assault. On the other hand, this is an odd approach in that it seems to advocate pursuing a sexual relationship with another soldier as long as neither party is intoxicated. The policy also does not seem to address any situations aside from a male on female assault scenario. It does not seem to address the situation of male on male, female on male or female on female sexual assault situations. It is a sad circumstance that sexual assaults have risen in combat zones, but I’m not sure if this new campaign is the answer to the problem.

Student Post - Somali Islamic Court Publicly Lashes Four Accused of Gang Rape

A picture of a young man getting whipped by soldiers in front of a large crowd in Somalia was released to local and international news sources on March 9th, and brought controversies out in the open. The headline reads: Somali Islamic Court Publicly Lashes 4 Accused Of Gang Rape. Even without looking at the picture, it is possible and natural to imagine a horrendous and appalling situation where not only did the accused not get a fair trial, but they were also punished physically in front of spectators brutally. And even with the knowledge of the seriousness and heinous nature of the crime that these young men were accused of committing, the first question that arises from this is, isn’t this a violation of fundamental human rights? Was it necessary to beat them in front of people? These would be the typical thoughts that come into our heads. However, this case differs from our usual imagination.

 

These four young men were found guilty of gang rape in the Somali capital, Mogadishu and it was a Judge Abdul Haq who designated four men to deliver the punishment immediately in front of a crowd of around 100 onlookers. Judge Haq genuinely believed that the punishment would deter other rapes. Despite his belief, many say that the lashing was not severe enough to make them regret their actions or help decrease the rape rate. Two of the youths smiled and laughed as they were punished. It was stated in the news that the lashing was administered through the clothes of the accused and did not break their skin. They admitted that they were guilty of raping a girl and welcomed the punishment. Although I am not by any way suggesting that the beating should have been more severe to a point where these men are suffering physically, I do not believe that it was an appropriate punishment for them.

 

In the very same land, an Islamist rebel administration in Somalia has had a 13-year-old girl, Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow, stoned to death for adultery after the child's father reported that she was raped by three men last October. When the father tried report to the police about her rape, she was detained and found guilty of adultery. None of the men accused was arrested. Even though convicting a girl of 13 year old for adultery would be illegal under Islamic law, stoning occurred anyways and the little girl died in front of thousand men watching.

 

What is more shocking is that the Court authorities have said the woman came to them admitting her guilt. She was known to be 23 years old until her father came forward and said that she was only a child. They said, while she was asked several times to review her confession, she stressed that she wanted Sharia law. And also that she believed that she deserved the punishment. Before more than 50 men started throwing stones at her, she begged for mercy and cried “don’t kill me, don’t kill me.” BBC reported that eye-witnesses said that she was forced into a hole, buried up to her neck then pelted with stones until she died in front of more than 1,000 people in a stadium.  According to Amnesty International, nurses were sent during the stoning to check whether she was still alive. When they removed her from the ground and declared that she was, she was replaced in the hole so the stoning could continue.

 

These are two rape cases with very different outcomes. Injustice took place in both cases in different ways, and it is not necessary to spell out what would have been just. A 13 year old girl’s crime was being raped, where as the four young men’s crime was gang rape. Yet, the result both ended up with public flogging that was not remotely adequate to the punishment each accused deserve. No court or religion should allow or sanction the execution of victims by any method. Furthermore, public flogging, lashing or stoning cannot be the appropriate measure of punishment for any crime.

Military Allows Convicted Rapists To Enlist

CBS has an excellent article covering the treatment of women in the military.  The article notes that the U.S. military is issuing "moral waivers," which allows felons, including convicted rapists to enlist. From CBS:

It's a potent environment, with female soldiers working - and living - under hostile conditions with their male counterparts.

One soldier, who asked us to call him Robert, spent three tours in Iraq as a signal unit leader out of Ft. Lewis in Washington state.

“For the female soldiers, it was far harder to adjust,” Robert told CBS News anchor Katie Couric. “Because not only did they have to deal with combat - mortar rounds, rockets, bullets - they also had to put up with male soldiers who were away from their families for a year.”

A decorated soldier in his unit, Robert says he went to his Command on many occasions after female soldiers complained of sexual assaults. Nothing was done.

“The last thing a commander wants, other than a death in his unit, is sexual harassment, or an assault case, because that makes his unit’s command look bad, Robert said.

For Wendy - an idealistic 17-year-old - the military seemed like the answer to her prayers.

“I was mostly going in for school,” Wendy said. “But I was also going in to see the world and travel.”

Deployed as a combat medic, Wendy was thrust into a chaotic and increasingly violent situation. Not long after, she experienced another kind of trauma, when she was assaulted by a fellow soldier in her barracks while she was sleeping.

“He started pushing himself on me,” she said. “And I wasn’t having it. So I started punching him and I actually kicked him in the groin.”

The military has long had a reputation for not effectively combating sexual violence by its soldiers. Adding rapists to the population of recruits will certainly not help.

Horrific Austrian Incest and Rape Case Ends with Life Inprisonment

The Austrian father who held his daughter captive in a cellar for 24 years and fathered a total of seven children with her was convicted of homicide, rape, incest, and other charges today.  He will be sentenced to life in a psychiatric ward. The New York Times has more. You can view previous coverage of this case here. From the Associated Press:

An Austrian jury convicted Josef Fritzl of homicide, enslavement, incest, rape and other charges Thursday and sentenced him to life in a psychiatric ward for holding his daughter captive for 24 years and fathering her seven children.

Fritzl, 73, sat calmly and bowed his head as the verdicts were read. He later told the court he accepted the outcome and waived his right to appeal — bringing a dramatic end to a shocking case that has drawn worldwide attention.

Court spokesman Franz Cutka said Fritzl would be taken to a secure psychiatric ward for mentally deranged criminals.

The homicide count — "murder by neglect" in German — was the most serious of the charges against 73-year-old Fritzl, and the jury gave him the maximum punishment allowed by law.

Officials said Fritzl would not be eligible for parole for at least 15 years, and psychiatric experts would have to concur with any decision to free him. He will also have to pay court costs. The 11 months Fritzl already has spent in pretrial detention will count toward his parole.

The other charges included false imprisonment and coercion. Fritzl had changed his stance and pleaded guilty Wednesday to all counts against him after he and the court viewed 11 hours of emotional videotaped testimony by his daughter, Elisabeth, whom he locked in a dungeon when she was 18.

"I regret it with all my heart ... I can't make it right anymore," Fritzl told the court Thursday, hours before the verdicts were announced.

Student Post - Athletes, Violence, and Sex

The stance among universities and professional sports has always been that the number of incidents of sexual crimes committed by athletes is in line with the percentages of the rest of the population. The only reason why it may seem like there are higher instances of athletes committing violent and sexual crimes is because when they do occur the media attacks it like a raccoon on a knocked over garbage can. Athletes are famous, many of them serve as role models, like it or not Charles Barkley, so when one of these incidents occur, it is big news throughout the country. Even when incidents occur at major universities, it is national news and the media may exploit it to some extent but that is only because the media knows that people care.

These incidents have been some of the biggest news stories over the past fifteen to twenty years. Think about it. There was O.J. (killing Nicole and Ron), Mark Chmura (allegedly raping a former baby-sitter at an after prom party), Rae Carruth (shooting and later killing his girlfriend who was pregnant at the time with his baby)  Kobe Bryant (allegedly sexually assaulting a 19 year old hotel employee), The Minnesota Viking “Love Boat Scandal” (17 players were charged with lewd and indecent conduct), and most recently the Duke Lacrosse scandal (several players were charged with raping a stripper they had hired for a party).

These are just the headliners - there are many more examples that were not so highly covered by the media because the athletes involved were not mainstream household names. The two most disturbing examples may be Richard Seigler, a former NFL linebacker, who has the distinction of being the first professional football player to be charged with pandering (pimping). Seigler had at least two girls working for him as prostitutes and he placed adds for them on craigslist advertising them as “all natural sexy girls.” The other not as well known incident took place on the Henderson State campus in Arkansas where four university football players and one student were charged with raping a 13-year-old girl.

These incidents happen in the general population as well. It makes sense that there would be examples of this in sports, after all they are just human beings. There have been two studies conducted to explore if there are higher incidents among athletes than non-athletes and the studies do not help thte case made by the athletes. Kathryn Hildebrand (Northern Arizona University) and Kimberly Bogle and Dewayne Johnson (Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL) conducted a study and wrote a research paper titled "Violence in Athletes Versus Non-Athletes by Gender.” The purpose of this study was to compare patterns of engagement in violence activities, and related risk behaviors, of athletes from various levels of participation (high school and college) and non-athletes.

High school athletes (male: 61.2%; female: 50.0%) and college athletes (male: 21.0%; female: 25.0%) were involved in a physical fight, more than non-athletes (male: 15.8%; female: 25.0%). Ten percent of male non-athletes carried a weapon two or three times while, 60% of male high school athletes and 26.7% of male college athletes carried a weapon two or three times; similarly, 22.2% of female non-athletes carried weapon one time compared to 66.7% and 11.1% of female high school and college athletes respectively (results for females were at a significant level). Athletes, both males (HS: 62.7%; college: 27.1%) and females (HS: 61.3%; college: 9.7%), had sex under the influence of drugs/alcohol significantly more than non-athletes (males: 15.7%; females: 28.0%). These results demonstrate the relationship between athletics and violence, which has been illustrated in the literature and society. Based on these results further research is needed to examine and understand the relationship between participation in violent acts and athletic status.

The other study, titled "The Benedict/Crosset Study," gives some interesting statistics as well. The three-year study shows that while male student-athletes comprise 3.3% of the population, they represent 19% of sexual assault perpetrators and 35% of domestic violence perpetrators. One in three college sexual assaults are committed by athletes. In the three years before 1998, an average of 1000 charges were brought against athletes each year. In 1995, while only 8.5% of the general population was charged with assault, 36.8% of athletes were charged with assault. The general population has a conviction rate of 80%. The conviction rate of an athlete is 38%. (Bendict/Crosset Study).

Why are there higher instances of violence and sexual abuse among athletes? Could it be that athletes are big men on campus and professional athletes are famous with lots of money which attract their fair share of admirers? Athletes may have more of an opportunity to have sexual encounters with a greater number of partners. Are these athletes not used to not getting what they want and hearing no? Maybe it is that there is a lack of fear from consequences and repercussions because so many athletes are used to special treatment and they don’t think they can get in trouble. There are many possible reasons and it’s doubtful that the ones named are even the reasons. More studies need to be done on this issue. We know very little about this issue and it needs to be addressed. Once we delve deeper into the reasons sex crimes and violence occur with such frequency among athletes maybe there will not be as many headlines.

For more information on this topic I found the National Coalition Against Violent Athletes to be helpful NCAVA.org

Student Post - Dominican Republic Rape Case has Similar Issues as in the United States

There are many issues and difficulties for rape victims in the United States that extend far beyond the trauma from the actual rape incident. Legal scholars continue to write about ways to reform rape law in America. Some of these difficulties stem from issues concerning the reporting of the rape, while others derive from the "rape kit" which must be administered to all rape victims once the rape is reported. Yet even more of these problems come from issues at trial-including the rape law itself and the treatment of women on the stand. Rape law needs to be reformed and a recent case in the Dominican Republic is reminiscent of so many of these same issues we face in the United States.

A pastor, Miguelina Cuevas, found the 12 year old victim in the house where she lived with her mother after she had been missing for several days. When the pastor discovered her, she was naked and bleeding, with multiple bruises and bite marks on her body and a cloth in between her legs. The victim said that seven or eight men had taken turns raping her vaginally and anally for two days. The pastor took her to get cleaned and then to the report the incident. From there, she was sent to the hospital in Jimaní without receiving any medical attention. In Jimaní, a legal medical examination was ordered but not carried out until the victim fainted during what Sergia Galvan, Executive Director of the Women and Health Collective, described as a "poorly executed and confusing" interrogation by justice officials. The victim was returned to Duvergé and admitted to hospital for seven days. 

Only one of the men was sent to prison. He was subsequently released without any valid explanation. Furthermore, the victim's eight-year-old sister was allegedly also sexually abused but no charges were ever filed despite the fact that Galvan's association conducted medical, psychological and psychiatric tests that clearly established sexual abuse. The victim's family and lawyers are demanding an immediate investigation by government and police officials into what they say claim were “serious faults” in the judicial process.

Rape is a horrifying enough experience for the victim, but it is even more horrifying the injustice that so many rape victims face both in the United States and throughout the world. It is time to change the system of justice for rape victims.

CNN Interview With Darfur Soldier Describes Atrocities

CNN has an interesting and disturbing interview with a former Sudanese solider who describes being ordered to rape and kill children. Rape continues to be an ugly weapon of war in Sudan. From CNN:

Last year in Darfur aid workers told me children as young as five were being raped in the huge displacement camps that are home to several million Darfuris. In some camps, they told me, rape had become so common that as many as 20 babies a month born from rape were being abandoned.

As I sat inches from Adam --not his real name -- I feared the revulsion I knew I would feel at my own questions as I asked about rape and his involvement. I have interviewed rape survivors in Darfur. I have two daughters. I am a human being with a conscience. It would be hard to listen to his replies.

He told me he was conscripted by force in to the Sudanese army in the summer of 2002. He thought he was being taken for six months' national service and then would be released.

The conversation was slow going at first. We were both holding off from delving into the sordid details he'd come to discuss. His answers were short, he told me he got no pay from the army, only food and drink.

He said he was rounded up in an army truck from a market in Darfur and trained to kill. He said he was armed with Kalashnikovs and told to "shoot targets."

Then, he says, his officers told him "we will be taken to a patrol and then soon after that we were asked to join other people to go and burn and kill people."

Student Post - Will the Victim Have a Role in the Osborne Case?

On Monday, March 3, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in District Attorney's Office for the Third Judicial District, et al. v. Osborne.  The Court is considering two questions on certiorari: 1) whether Osborne may use 1983 as a discovery device to obtain post-conviction access to the state's biological evidence when he has no pending substantive claim for which that evidence would be material; and 2) whether Osborne has a due process right to obtain post-conviction access to the state's biological evidence when the claim he intends to assert - a freestanding claim of innocence - is not legally cognizable.

These facts are from Osborne v. State, 2005 Alas. App. LEXIS 17 (Alask. Ct. App. 2005). On March 22, 1993, respondent Osborne was one of two men who sexually assaulted K.G. at gunpoint.  The two men then ordered K.G. to get out of the car and lay face down in the snow.  When she refused, Osborne struck her with the gun and choked her.  Out of fear that the men would kill her, K.G. defecated on the front passenger seat of the car.  Then, Osborne smeared her own excrement on K.G.'s face, hair and clothing.  Though K.G. was able to run a few feet from the car, the two men continued the assault.  They repeatedly struck her with an axe handle on her head, ribs, and knees.  K.G. decided to play dead, but Osborne fired his gun at her head (fortunately, only grazing her) and the two men partially buried her in the snow.  They believed either that she was dead or left her for dead. 

The details of that day in 1993 are horrifying to recount, but some argue that this case is as much about K.G.'s right to privacy as it is Osborne's post-conviction rights to access DNA evidence.  In their amicus brief on behalf of K.G. and the National Crime Victim Law Institute, and in support of petitioner, Paul Cassell and Margaret Gavin focus on K.G.'s right to remain free from further intrusion into her privacy.  Because Osborne has never declared under threat of perjury that he is actually innocent, Cassell and Garvin argue that K.G.'s right to privacy outweighs Osborne's right to go on an evidentiary fishing expedition. Notably, K.G.'s clothing could contain at least three substances: semen, blood and feces.  The amici list significant personal information that might be revealed if Osborne gets access to the testing:  K.G.'s previous sexual partners; private medical facts (including whether she was pregnant);  HIV status; and DNA (which can reveal whether the subject carries mutations for any disorders or carries genetic variations that cause schizophrenia and alcoholism, or worse).  Additionally, Cassell and Garvin cite research that a significant barrier to reporting sexual assaults is the victim's concern about her confidentiality.  Finally, the amici are careful to frame their main point as follows:

    "...[B]y seeking these tests through a 1983 petition rather than a federal heabeas petition, Osborne     has effectively made an end run around vital protections contained in the Crime Victims' Rights Act,     18 U.S.C. 3771."

The Court should note how much of K.G.'s personal information will be revealed if Osborne, who has already been convicted, is allowed access to the DNA testing he seeks.

During last Monday's oral arguments, no one mentioned victims' rights or privacy interests.  Peter Neufeld, attorney for the respondent, argued that allowing Osborne (who forwent this particular DNA test at his trial for strategic reasons) to perform a simple test on the blood and semen evidence gave him no advantages, and even punished him if the results proved his guilt.  Justice Scalia quickly interrupted, "But [defendants] will have acquired the advantage of having a chance of the jury's acquitting them at the trial.  Because by not asking for the DNA test, there was a chance the jury might let them off."  Chief Justice Roberts also raised the concern that convicted criminals will have access to endless appeals if they can continually re-test evidence as technology advances. He favored the requirement that they proclaim their actual innocence under penalty of perjury before having access to the evidence.

In sum, this case concerns more complex legal questions than a victim's right to privacy, but the Court's answers must acknowledge that victims of sexual violence play a greater role in the criminal law than simply being DNA evidence. In reaching its decision, the Court must carefully consider the victims' rights to privacy and finality, the constitutional rights of criminal defendants, and society's interest in convicting the guilty and freeing the innocent.