School makes girl apologize to rapist, who then rapes her again. School suspends girl

[Amanita]

Wow..I have no words for those school officials in the OP. And as for the rapist? Let him rot. Raping a special needs student is lower than whale shit on the bottom of the ocean. Of course, rape in general is lower than whale shit on the bottom of the ocean, but targetting a special ed student just compounds the heinousness of it all.

[dendawg]

I don't feel any such need to watch my mouth.

You and me both in this instance. If I had a a daughter and something like this happened, not only would I be hunting down the motherfucker that did it. I'd be raising major hell on every news outlet available to me, and I'd be most likely destroying the principal's desk from pounding on it so hard reaming him a new asshole.

[Shangri-laschild]

Sometimes things like this seem like there's something missing. For instance, it sucks that girl has to apologize to rapist...but then what if there's more to it, like...there was no rape? maybe?

Not the second time seeing as how the test came back positive to him and he pleaded guilty. While there are some small chance reasons why this could have happened and him being innocent, I doubt it seeing as how the school was backing him. Any reasoning for their reaction the first time (he's upstanding, she's a known liar) can't cover the fact that after it happened a second time and her attacker was found guilty, the school still punished her again. While I get what you're saying about how it seems like there is more to the story, the second half of the situation makes me think it most likely is one of those fucked up situations that honestly do happen sometimes.

At this point is saying she wasn't raped as much as they are saying that it's her own fault and they shouldn't be held responsible. How nice of them.

[Jester]

The grand jury reviewed the allegation and turned it down, essentially giving an opinion that they found the claim to be without merit.

Declining to prosecute is not the same thing as finding an allegation "without merit." While I have not read the transcripts of that particular grand jury, it is entirely possible that they declined to prosecute for lack of evidence that would result in a likely conviction, rather than that they found the girl without credibility.

While the school absolutely could have handled it in a more sensitive manner, they didn't actually do anything wrong, either.

Actually, what they did wrong WAS handle it in such an insensitive manner. Technically, legally, they did nothing wrong, true. But in a human sense, in a common sense vein, in a DECENCY way, what they did was reprehensible.

You and me both in this instance. If I had a a daughter and something like this happened, not only would I be hunting down the motherfucker that did it. I'd be raising major hell on every news outlet available to me, and I'd be most likely destroying the principal's desk from pounding on it so hard reaming him a new asshole.

Not me. I'd very quiet about it. VERY quiet.

And shortly thereafter, there would no longer be any DNA evidence that said motherfucker had ever existed.

We've all heard the expression "an eye for an eye." I don't subscribe to that belief. I subscribe to a more extreme form of it; I believe in a HEAD for an eye.

[dendawg]

Not me. I'd very quiet about it. VERY quiet.

You may be a screwy wabbit, but you're not going to Alcatwaz.

[Canarr]

Declining to prosecute is not the same thing as finding an allegation "without merit." While I have not read the transcripts of that particular grand jury, it is entirely possible that they declined to prosecute for lack of evidence that would result in a likely conviction, rather than that they found the girl without credibility.

But they did decline to prosecute him, and that's the point - to me, at least. Asking the school to treat the boy as a rapist, despite the fact that he wasn't officially charged as such, strikes me as setting a very dangerous precedence. "Doesn't matter what the DA or the police say; we believe you are guilty, and this is your punishment."

I get that is sucks for the girl, having to cheer for him; but what's the alternative? Okay, she accused him, she doesn't have to cheer for him; seems easy enough. Okay, her sister doesn't have to attend the same classes he does. Neither do her friends. Or anybody else, for that matter, who doesn't want to.

Where would you stop it?

[Jester]

But they did decline to prosecute him, and that's the point - to me, at least. Asking the school to treat the boy as a rapist, despite the fact that he wasn't officially charged as such, strikes me as setting a very dangerous precedence.

I agree. And I would not expect the school to treat him as a rapist after the decision was made not to prosecute. I have no problem with that.

What I DO have a problem with is the school then turning around and treating the girl like a criminal. And having exactly zero compassion for her or her situation. Just because there was no prosecution does not mean that nothing happened. So, while it would be wrong legally to treat the guy as a rapist, it is equally wrong humanly to treat the girl as a criminal simply because there was no prosecution, which we all know doesn't mean there wasn't a crime.

I get that is sucks for the girl, having to cheer for him; but what's the alternative? Okay, she accused him, she doesn't have to cheer for him; seems easy enough. Okay, her sister doesn't have to attend the same classes he does. Neither do her friends. Or anybody else, for that matter, who doesn't want to.

Where would you stop it?

Right where it started: she doesn't have to cheer for him. She wasn't making a show out of jeering him, mind you...she just didn't want to cheer for the douchebag that violated her. Frankly, I don't see a problem with that.

Now, if her sister or her friends wanted to transfer classes to avoid Mr. Wonderful, and the school has transfer procedures, as long as those people follow those procedures, I have no problem with that. But should the school make special allowances for said friends, beyond the normal procedures available to them? No, I don't think so.

You let the cheerleader not cheer, but since there was no prosecution, you don't let other people who were not directly affected get special treatment. Allowing a little special treatment to the cheerleader is not only acceptable in my mind, but shows the humanity of the school. Which clearly was lacking.

[Eisa]

^That, seriously. Why she had to cheer for him, I don't know. They didn't find that he was completely innocent and didn't do it--they just declined to prosecute. All she wanted to do was not cheer for him. Perfectly a-ok in my book, but they had to act like dicks.

[Canarr]

My point is: whoever was responsible for the decision to punish the girl for not cheering probably wasn't present when the alleged rape occurred. They couldn't say for sure whether the girl's claims were true, erroneously wrong, or maliciously wrong (all distinct possibilities when dealing with a rape charge). All they had to go on was the court's decision not to prosecute, meaning they had to treat the boy as innocent (something about, until proven guilty?).

Therefore, allowing the girl - in a highly public venue - to refuse cheering for him, might be construed as the school supporting the girl's claim that the boy was a rapist, despite the lack of charges, and could possibly open up the school to a lawsuit by his parents - defamation of character, slander, whatever. I can understand school officials not wanting to incur that risk and thus, removing the girl from the squad. It may lack in compassion, but, rape being so difficult to prove or disprove, how would one know where compassion was due and where not?

[Jester]

All they had to go on was the court's decision not to prosecute, meaning they had to treat the boy as innocent (something about, until proven guilty?).

And they didn't punish him, thus treating him as innocent of the crime.

However, they treated the girl as a criminal, in so many ways. Did they attempt to go to her and work out some sort of compromise? From what I know about the case, no, they did not. Did they reach out to her in any way to try to find a better solution? From what I know about the case, no, they did not. They simply decided that her refusing to cheer was disruptive and tossed her off the team.

Frankly, I am sick to death of people making excuses for douchebags. Yes, I understand the legal system of this country is based on the idea of keeping innocent people out of jail, and I AGREE with that premise. I SUPPORT that premise, as too many people HAVE been wrongly convicted and imprisoned for crimes they did not commit.

That being said, a school is NOT a court room, and a school system is NOT the United States legal system. They could have, and more importantly they SHOULD have addressed this situation differently. They should have done so mostly because it's the human and decent thing to do, but also from a pragmatic viewpoint, it would have not given them the ridiculously bad PR they are not facing.

Idiots. Pure and simple, they acted like idiots. Cowardly, detestable, uncompassionate, and rigidly stubborn idiots.

[mikoyan29]

My point is: whoever was responsible for the decision to punish the girl for not cheering probably wasn't present when the alleged rape occurred. They couldn't say for sure whether the girl's claims were true, erroneously wrong, or maliciously wrong (all distinct possibilities when dealing with a rape charge). All they had to go on was the court's decision not to prosecute, meaning they had to treat the boy as innocent (something about, until proven guilty?).

Therefore, allowing the girl - in a highly public venue - to refuse cheering for him, might be construed as the school supporting the girl's claim that the boy was a rapist, despite the lack of charges, and could possibly open up the school to a lawsuit by his parents - defamation of character, slander, whatever. I can understand school officials not wanting to incur that risk and thus, removing the girl from the squad. It may lack in compassion, but, rape being so difficult to prove or disprove, how would one know where compassion was due and where not?

There are alot of reasons why a prosecutor may decide not to prosecute someone. INnocence is not necessarily one of them.

[Canarr]

That being said, a school is NOT a court room, and a school system is NOT the United States legal system. They could have, and more importantly they SHOULD have addressed this situation differently. They should have done so mostly because it's the human and decent thing to do, but also from a pragmatic viewpoint, it would have not given them the ridiculously bad PR they are not facing.

Idiots. Pure and simple, they acted like idiots. Cowardly, detestable, uncompassionate, and rigidly stubborn idiots.

Oh, I'm with you there - they treated her badly, and stupidly so. What I'm saying is merely that I can understand why they might have acted the way they did. It's easy to lean back in our comfortable desk chairs and erupt in outrage over the school's behavior. Hinsight is 20/20, or so they say.

Still, I wouldn't know what kind of compromise could've been worked out here. Cheerleading is a sport, right? Which means, a team of kids work together to do what one person says they should (coach or captain or whatever). If one kid is allowed to do their own thing, or refuse to participate, they're not being part of the team. Thus, you suddenly don't have a complete team working towards one goal anymore, and that kinda screws it up for everybody else. It's like one of the other (Basket?)Ball players refusing to pass the ball to their teammate because he might be a rapist. How are you supposed to work around something like that?

There are alot of reasons why a prosecutor may decide not to prosecute someone. INnocence is not necessarily one of them.

Of course, but that doesn't really matter, does it? Presumed innocent until proven guilty, that's the whole point of the justice system. Or are you following the principle of, "Well, if he were innocent, he wouldn't have been arrested!" ?

[Jester]

Cheerleading is a sport, right?

Personally I don't believe it is, but that's another debate for another time. I will concede to you that it is a team activity, if not an actual sport.

It's like one of the other (Basket?)Ball players refusing to pass the ball to their teammate because he might be a rapist.

Not at all a good analogy, as they are not teammates on the same team, but rather, one is on a team that is rooting for the ball team that the other one is one.

How are you supposed to work around something like that?

I don't know. More to the point, the school doesn't know, and apparently made no effort to find out. And that is part of the problem I have with all this. Another part is that they put the guy WAY above the girl in each one's importance, and that just smacks of all that is wrong with high school sports in this country.

Presumed innocent until proven guilty, that's the whole point of the justice system.

And once again I want to point out that the school does not operate under the same premises or rules of the justice system, nor do I think they should.

[Canarr]

Activity is fine with me; I don't care enough about the question whether or not it's a sport to debate that. Although I do remember a rather entertaining movie featuring Kirsten Dunst and Eliza Dushku that seemed to operate under that assumption. Then again, maybe not; there were a lot of short skirts, so I was distracted. Pretty sure it was about cheerleading, though...

Anyway: granted, the analogy isn't 100%, since there are two teams involved. But still, one person's refusal to engage in the team activities provides a potential problem to the other people on both teams. Without going further into the question of, what exactly is wrong with high school sports in your country, there is quite a bit riding on these sports/activities for the participants, isn't there? Scholarships to colleges and the like? Considering this, how is it fair to the other kids on both teams to let one person disrupt their lives/sports/activities?

I still agree with you that it sucks how she was treated. But I also still can't think of any way to solve the problem that wouldn't have been equally unfair to either the accused or several entirely uninvolved other people.

And once again I want to point out that the school does not operate under the same premises or rules of the justice system, nor do I think they should.

Meaning what, exactly? The school should've just ignored the decision of the court/jury to not charge the boy in question, and punish him anyway? Of course they don't possess any judicial powers - nor should they - but that is the reason why I believe they *should* treat him as innocent - which includes disallowing other students to treat him in any way that wouldn't be tolerated towards any other student, either.

[Jester]

I still agree with you that it sucks how she was treated. But I also still can't think of any way to solve the problem that wouldn't have been equally unfair to either the accused or several entirely uninvolved other people.

The school made no attempt to find some sort of middle ground or compromise, so they do not get any sympathy from me.

Nor does the accused. Yes, he was not found guilty in a court of law. My sympathies and opinions are not, as justice is, blind. I can pick and choose what I think and of whom, and that yahoo can suck the big kahuna as far as I'm concerned.

Meaning what, exactly? The school should've just ignored the decision of the court/jury to not charge the boy in question, and punish him anyway? Of course they don't possess any judicial powers - nor should they - but that is the reason why I believe they *should* treat him as innocent - which includes disallowing other students to treat him in any way that wouldn't be tolerated towards any other student, either.

As I indicated above, justice is considered "blind" in this country, as it should be. Lest anyone think I believe the justice system should not act under that premise, get rid of that thought now, as I firmly believe that the way it operates is the way it should operate.

But school systems and school administrators do not have to operate as blindly. They can use common sense and compassion. They can use their own discretion.

Analagous to this is some professional football players that got into various amounts of trouble. Some of them who did, who were either qcquitted or not prosecuted were still disciplined by the league. Why? Because the league commissioner used his discretion to punish them for even making the league look bad by their actions, or as some analysts said, for putting themselves in bad positions.

And the school, as it is not the justice system, could just as well use their own discretion to come to some sort of compromise. If that resulted in some minor inconvenience or problems for the guy, frankly, I have no issue with that. It beats the hell out of the girl having to suffer. Because while he was "not prosecuted" and in your mind should be treated as if he was innocent, SHE, a victim in the matter, was treated as a perpetrator. She was not prosecuted, she was not even charged, but she is treated like dirt while this douchewaffle gets afforded the full protection of the school administrators?

Bullshit.

Besides, as I said, they did not even make any ATTEMPT to come to some sort of compromise. They just lowered the hammer on this girl.

And once again, the victim is made to feel like the criminal, while the (alleged) criminal is not inconvenienced in any way.

Pardon me while I barf.