Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Does Sworn Statement Equal Proof Of Guilt?

The answer is yes from False Rape Society (I won't link, you can find the post if you want to). Sworn statements of guilt prove guilt. Always:
There is much utility [for the DA] in having a high profile false rape accuser sign off on a sworn statement admitting she falsely accused young men of rape. The cackling false rape "denialists" will have a difficult time spinning the clear words of this document. And even if Ndonye had been charged, there was no guarantee of a conviction, and even less of a more substantial punishment than she voluntarily agreed to.

He is referring to the Hofstra University alleged gang rape hoax in which the prosecutor has announced she won't be filing charges against the woman in exchange for a list of actions including the alleged hoaxer's sworn statement of guilt.

I use the term alleged gang rape hoax because this deferred prosecution agreement isn't a conviction so legally this woman is still innocent.

Criminal charges would bring in the cell phone video which has been described as proving her guilt and if the woman didn't plead guilty then she would have the same legal rights as any other alleged criminal. In this trial the men this woman accused wouldn't have the right not to testify and would only have the right to plead the fifth. The case would be decided on the totality of the evidence presented and that could be far different than the popular descriptions of this case.

GARDEN CITY, N.Y. — A Hofstra University freshman who falsely claimed she was gang-raped in a dormitory bathroom must undergo mental health counseling and perform 250 hours of community service in an agreement that saves her from criminal charges, a prosecutor said Friday.

Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice said the agreement is far more than prosecutors could have expected if the woman, Danmel Ndonye, 18, of New York City, had been prosecuted.

Rice said Ndonye, whom she previously described as "deeply troubled," would have only been subject to a misdemeanor charge of filing a false report and there is nothing in the law to require her to undergo counseling and perform community service.
A woman who is "deeply troubled" and in need of mental health counseling may not be capable of participating in her own defense. That raises the question of whether she is mentally competent to sign any sworn statements.

I'm not a false rape "denialist" except in the minds of many anti-feminists like those from False Rape Society. I still don't know whether this case was a hoax or not and neither do all those non-participants who have not seen the video which allegedly proves the woman consented. The references I've read from those who have seen it refer only to what the video doesn't show so I actually know nothing about what behavior on this woman's part that the video does show.

To explain why I don't simply assume this woman to be guilty based on her recantation and her sworn statement I will refer to several cases and several organizations.

In Madison, WS, a woman raped by a man she didn't know was coerced by an investigator into falsely recanting and had her case described as false to the media. She was only charged with a crime after her letter of complaint about the investigator was read by the investigator. Her experience was the focus of the book Cry Rape: the harrowing story of one woman's quest for justice by Bill Lueders. FYI: despite the mishandling of her case and her recantation there was enough evidence to convict her rapist.

One case with a false confession of guilt could be dismissed as a fluke so I will reference those who highlight patterns behind false admissions of guilt.

From an article in the IPT Journal ("The Institute for Psychological Therapies is a private practice of clinical psychology. IPT's primary work is related to allegations of child sexual abuse, but also deals with cases of sexual harassment, claims of recovered memories of childhood abuse, accusations of rape, allegations of improper sexual contact by professionals, forced and coerced confessions, false confessions, personal injury claims, mitigating factors in sentencing, custody, and medical and psychological malpractice.") titled "Sex Offender Treatment":
When a person is accused of sexual abuse, the accusation is either true or it is not true and the accused may admit or deny the accusation. But there also may be plea bargaining, dropping of charges for insufficient evidence, dismissal by stipulation in family court, admission of guilt, admission of a mistake by the social service agency, and acquittal by the criminal court along with a finding of abuse by family court. An accused person may be required to enter a treatment program as a sexual abuser long before there is a determination by the justice system about the accusation.

Sound familiar? Yet this article describes this as coercive and likely to result in untrue admissions of guilt. This contradicts FRS's claim.

From a story about exonerations in a murder case:

Would innocent people ever admit to a heinous crime?

They sometimes do, says the Innocence Project, a nonprofit legal clinic that helps clear people wrongly convicted of crimes through post-conviction testing of DNA. In its first 130 exonerations, the group says, more than one in four of the defendants had confessed falsely.

Joseph J. Dick Jr. is one of the men who says his admission in the Moore-Bosko [murder] case was a lie. A young sailor from a working-class family, Dick was impressionable, slow and deferential to authority, his attorneys argue - a person who could be persuaded to confess under pressure. [...]

He and his new attorneys now say that he seized onto a plea agreement to avoid the death penalty and that he came to believe, for a while at least, that he committed the crimes.

If an innocent man can be persuaded to confess to a murder he didn't commit and can come to believe his false statement then a woman can be persuaded to confess filing false rape charges and can come to believe she is guilty when she is not.

If FRS is correct then the Innocence Project must be wrong and Joseph Dick Jr. must be guilty. Not only must he be guilty but more than one quarter of the Innocence Project's first 130 exonerations must have been wrongful exonerations since those defendants confessed.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by Marcella Chester @ 10:52 AM   1 comments links to this post


At September 30, 2009 12:11 PM, Anonymous Kali said...

Thanks for this post. There is no consistency in the arguments of the rape apologists. Their hypocrisy and inconsistency exposes their bias.

A Hofstra University freshman who falsely claimed she was gang-raped ..

I notice there is no use of "alleged" in this statement. When it comes to rape, women (but not rapists) are guilty without any presumption of innocence.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home