Nightmare in Maryville
- Thread starter cydsho
- Start date
I think you completely misunderstood what I said. I'm not justifying the "she was asking for it" defense, if you read on I go on to say that from an objective standpoint I think the facts reported are deplorable. The issue is, as is the issue in all of these cases, is what both individuals percieved to be the situation, and what was either verbalized or otherwise communicated. I'm sure that IN THIS KID'S BRAIN (and this is not, in any way, shape or form something I condone or believe should have been the kid's thought process) he thought that he had consent. That belief likely came from some earlier communications or something that led him to believe that she was consenting. Obviously, objectively he should have known that any prior consent or hints at consent go out the window when she is passed out drunk. So I guess it is then up to a prosecutor and a jury if charges would have been filed to determine whether his belief was a reasonable one, which I do not believe it was.
That's the problem with this type of law. Knowing consent is an ambiguous standard, and one that courts have long tried to get a grasp on. Read up on any any SCOTUS criminal procedure case where consent is an issue (consent to search, waiver of rights, etc.). SCOTUS has essentially said that you have to look at the totality of the circumstances to determine if someone is capable of giving knowing consent, which is basically to say that it's impossible to create a bright line rule but rather the issue of consent is taken on a case by case basis. It's a hard standard and it leads to unfair results on both sides of the coin.
I do literally no work with contract disputes, but IIRC from contracts class (which is going back about 5 years now) it can be evidence that there wasn't the mental capacity to enter into the contract, but it's not going to be some kind of per se defense that a contract was automatically invalid. Purposeful, self-induced intoxication is also generally viewed with suspicion in these cases. If you could show someone got you drunk, and then sprung this idea of a contract on you, and you signed it while you could barely function, you might be able to get out of it.
Otherwise you'd have people intentionally getting drunk before they signed any contract, breaking it if convenient, and then saying "hey, I was drunk".
Shouldn't the person that's not intoxicated just wait until the other party is sober before they sign?
Well considering I wasn't the only one who thought that last paragraph of your read that way I think maybe you should take another look at that. As I said I didn't think that's what you were trying to say but it certainly read that way to me and others.
I think taking the "totality of circumstances" approach is probably the right approach to take considering we can't really get inside someone's head to know exactly what they're thinking. Given eye witness testimony, I think the prosecutors in this case certainly had enough evidence she couldn't give consent to at least bring the case to trial. Then it's up to a judge and jury to decide if that evidence will be enough.
That is the biggest issue in this whole thing. The rape charges may have not stuck but I'm not sure how all charges could have been dropped. At the least they should have been brought up on endangerment of a minor for leaving her out in the cold and exploitation of a minor for filming the rape and sending it to friends. Even if they can't convict of rape these seem pretty clear cut that charges should have been filed.
The crazy part is that the 15 year old boy who raped the 13 year old was actually charged but sent to Juvenile court so his identity was protected. It's really hard to see how charges could be brought against him but all other charges were dropped against Barnett and Zeke.
I seriously doubt this kid thought he had consent. I think he just knew he would get away with it.
yes, which is what would happen in any real contract negotiation. It's why it's more of a hypothetical example than a real life one. There's no reason for either party of a contract to risk litigation when you could just wait another day.
Exactly. Testimonies that she was crying and talking gibberish while barely conscience and being filmed tells us all we need to know about what was going on in his head.
But it doesn't what was going through his mind, he still committed a crime (allegedly). Regarding your second paragraph: this is why I think you should have alcohol mentioned in laws about consent and sexual assault. The courts will be able to figure out on an individual basis where the line was. If my girlfriend and I go out to eat, have one or two drinks and later have consensual sex, the courts are going to be able to determine that there was consent. By having alcohol mentioned in the code, it provides an overarching definition that helps protect victims.
They might not know. Lots of people can be legally intoxicated and not "show" it.
I still can't believe the prosecutor can say there was not enough evidence.
Besides the physical evidence, the eyewitness evidence that she was not able to give consent, there was probably good circumstantial evidence that the alleged had no regard for her safety or rights. He gave her a large amount of alcohol, then had sex with her, then dumped her in the cold. Not much that says that was consensual.
Also, other circumstantial evidence could probably be used to show his demeaning attitude towards women, like one the alleged tweeted (after all of this):
“If her name begins with A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z, she wants the D.â€
But I'm sure if this assault had been done by boys from outside Maryville/Nodaway county to a local girl, there would have been a trial.
Besides the physical evidence, the eyewitness evidence that she was not able to give consent, there was probably good circumstantial evidence that the alleged had no regard for her safety or rights. He gave her a large amount of alcohol, then had sex with her, then dumped her in the cold. Not much that says that was consensual.
Also, other circumstantial evidence could probably be used to show his demeaning attitude towards women, like one the alleged tweeted (after all of this):
“If her name begins with A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z, she wants the D.â€
But I'm sure if this assault had been done by boys from outside Maryville/Nodaway county to a local girl, there would have been a trial.
Absolutely. And this is why a per se intoxication clause is not necessary. Evidence of extreme intoxication can be used as part of the totality of the circumstances.
The fact that she was 13 made it an automatic statutory rape charge. All the prosecution needs to prove is that they had sex and I believe that was admitted to.
I hate laws like that frankly. Is it worse for a 15 year old to have sex with a 13 year old than a 17 year old with a 14 year old?
The correct term is voidable or the contract is still legally binding, but could be made void. If the other party was aware the person was drunk or should have known then it can be voidable, but I believe it depends on where the contract is in the process. If you buy something like food when you are drunk and consume, then the contract is still valid and you will have to pay.
right and Al is talking about written contracts. Technically, he should be talking about verbal contracts but I think we've taken this sidebar far enough as it is.
It does matter what was going through his mind. The vast majority of crimes require intent, otherwise they are strict liability crimes. I obviously am not an expert of Missouri sexual assault laws, and I really don't have the ambition to look it up. However, I would imagine that if the code read that it is illegal to have sex with a person who has any alcohol in their system this would be an open and shut, strict liability case. However, I cannot imagine that is the case if they chose not to prosecute him, which leads me to believe that the statute hinges on whether or not consent was knowingly given. In sexual encounters, consent is not always clearly communicated. Rare is the case where one party says "Shall we engage in sex?" and the other says "Yes." This is what makes it difficult to glean whether consent was communicated. As such, it is imparitve to know whether he reasonably believed he had consent, or in your words "what was going through his mind." This is what makes a rape case so hard to try.
Also, in dealing with the law on an every day basis, you have to realize there are evidentiary issues and burden of proof issues at play. We've all heard the cliff note version of what happened, but we have no real idea what of that information would be admissible in court. We have know idea if searches were performed constitutionally, or if other evidence was seized in a manner that would allow it into court. It's also important to note that it would be the State's job to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This would undoubtedly turn into a "he said she said" amongst the kids in attendance on whether she had consented. In a case like that, it is easy to see how it would be hard to establish proof beyond a reasonable doubt. We've seen how this type of thing played out in Casey Anthony and George Zimmerman, leading to legal results that many felt were unjust
I'm really not condoning what happened. I have a daughter myself and it is unthinkable to imagine her going through that. I also think there may have been a case worth trying here, and I'm not entirely sure why nothing was filed. However, before conspiring that political pressures got the prosectuor, I think it is important to realize we are just seeing a small bit of the story with no real consideration of evidentiary or burden of proof issues, and that burden of proof is so hard to carry when a case divolves into a he said, she said on whether consent was knowingly given.
