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

[Eisa]

Aaaaaaaand that's what I hate about rape cases. It happened in the cheerleader story, it happened in the title story of the thread, and it happens multiple times the world over. The accused is treated innocent and sometimes like a saintly hero, and the victim is treated like a criminal. Not to mention how it always seems the victim's sexual past is raked over with hot coals. I don't care if she was paying her way through high school by being a hooker, no one gets the right to rape her.

In the cheerleader case, he wasn't found innocent--they declined to prosecute. There's a difference there. They declined to prosecute my sister's ex even though they had a written confession he raped her.

They could have done something that didn't treat the cheerleader like she was a criminal. They didn't.

[Akasa]

Edited, we don't condone violence...

[Hyena Dandy]

Nobody's treating him like a saint. But the school system is a branch of the government. They should be obliged act the way the government acts. It seems he really did rape her. Which is unfortunate. But what could they have done? All that the school had access to was an accusation. Which, unfortunately, they can't determine guilt by.

They would either have to treat all accusations as true, or all accusations as false. Either way, somebody would get screwed over by that policy.

[Canarr]

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.

Not much of an analogy without sources and explicit examples, but I'll try tackling it anyway: I'm assuming said football players engaged in the usual type of minor felonies - soliciting a prostitute, drug use, DUI, possibly assault and/or battery while drunk (bar fights and similar), but without serious injuries to any third party? And I'll further assume that in those cases, there were arrests, police reports, and witnesses - thus, the league commissioner had something more to go on than one girl's testimony vs. one boy's denial? If that's the case, then I'm afraid your analogy is flawed.

In such cases, there is still sufficient evidence that the players in question committed acts that, while not being prosecuted for in a court of law, the league could still act on. In the case we're discussing here, there isn't; just the word of one girl, who was drunk at the time, against actually three boys (who were probably also drunk, granted). To me, that's the difference.

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?

Solely from being banished from the cheerleading squad (where she was reinstated two weeks later), she wasn't treated as a perpetrator. She was treated like someone refusing to fulfill the activity they had signed up for, and therefore, removed from the team. Ideally, like any other member of the team would also have been for the same acts.

However, there were also allegations that she was told not to go to the cafeteria and reduce her participation in school activities to keep a "low profile"; if those were true, there's not a single extenuating circumstances left and whoever in the school administration came up with that idea is a monumental asshole.

All that the school had access to was an accusation. Which, unfortunately, they can't determine guilt by.

They would either have to treat all accusations as true, or all accusations as false. Either way, somebody would get screwed over by that policy.

Exactly. Maybe he was guilty, and not charging him was wrong; and maybe he was innocent, and not charging him was right. Either way, how should the school have known?

Jester, I still agree with you that the school didn't treat the girl well at all. They could've shown more compassion, more understanding, more humanity. But I really don't see how they should have known - at that point in the timeline - that she was truly a victim, and thus deserving of special treatment.

EDIT: we had that discussion in the other topic, I think:


(Jan 2009)

The Hardin County grand jury has decided not to indict three Silsbee High School football players who were charged with sexually assaulting a cheerleader during a party, according to District Attorney David Sheffield.

The grand jury heard about three hours of testimony Monday before voting to no-bill Christian Rountree, 18, Rakheem Bolton, 17, and a 16 year old juvenile.

They were accused of sexually assaulting a Silsbee High School cheerleader last October during a party at a home in Silsbee.

The girl testified before the grand jury.

"The action by the Grand Jury ends the matter unless something such as newly discovered evidence arises and necessitates presentment of the case to this or another Grand Jury," said Sheffield.

Sheffield told KFDM News everyone involved in the case is a victim of underage drinking and an extreme lack of adult supervision.

"Because everyone had been drinking, it would have made it difficult to prove the allegations raised in this case," said Sheffield.

"Everyone's memory and degree of accuracy in their recollections would make it tough to prove."

A woman at the home where the party took place faces misdemeanor charges of making alcohol available to minors.

Sheffield says because the players and the cheerleader are no more than three years apart in age, state law prevents prosecution for sexual assault if the grand jury cannot determine there was lack of consent. He says if the age difference had been greater than three years, state law allows for prosecution of sexual assault, even if there's consent.



Read more: http://www.kfdm.com/articles/former-...#ixzz1W2ZoHPTo

[Jester]

Nobody's treating him like a saint. But the school system is a branch of the government. They should be obliged act the way the government acts.

They are part of the government, yes. They are NOT part of the justice system. And that is an important distinction.

And whatever you may think, the school system is not, by law, under any obligation to act in the same way or under the same guidelines as the justice system is.

They would either have to treat all accusations as true, or all accusations as false. Either way, somebody would get screwed over by that policy.

Again, no. They don't have to treat everything as black or white, as the justice system does. There are plenty of areas of grey, and they have the ability, if not the will or backbone, to exercise their discretion and try to come up with some sort of solution. Which clearly they did not.

If that's the case, then I'm afraid your analogy is flawed.

That was the case in most cases, and I never said my analogy was perfect.

That being said, in at least one case, it was a he said she said situation, and the commissioner still disciplined the player. To make it short, a star player was accused of raping an under-21 year old college woman in a bar bathroom. Local authorities investigated and, due to lack of corroborating evidence (for either side), declined to prosecute. Said star player was still suspended for the first four games of the season.

Solely from being banished from the cheerleading squad (where she was reinstated two weeks later), she wasn't treated as a perpetrator.

No? She was treated as a "problem," as a pariah, and was made to feel like she was doing something wrong, whereas the jock was treated with kid gloves and not in any way inconvenienced.

However, there were also allegations that she was told not to go to the cafeteria and reduce her participation in school activities to keep a "low profile";

Perhaps not treated as a perpetrator, but definitely not treated well, or as a victim or potential victim.

Either way, how should the school have known?

The school could not have known, of course. But to automatically assume the girl was wrong or falsely accusing the jock just because he was not prosecuted is insensitive to the extreme. They just couldn't be bothered to do anything but try to make her go away. It was heartless, it was cruel, and it was bullshit. No attempt, but any stories I've read, were made to reconcile her with her team "duties," no attempts at a compromise were made, nothing. She was simply banished.

Jester, I still agree with you that the school didn't treat the girl well at all. They could've shown more compassion, more understanding, more humanity.

More? Try any. They did not display one drop of any of those traits.

But I really don't see how they should have known - at that point in the timeline - that she was truly a victim, and thus deserving of special treatment.

They could not have known if she was or wasn't a victim, of course.

But to say that because they couldn't, they should not treat her a certain way is ludicrous. They certainly gave the jock special treatment, despite not knowin if he was a rapist. By your argument, the potential rapist, when not prosecuted, must be treated as innocent, while the potential victim, when there is no prosecution, must be treated as if there were definitely no crime, so anything they do that violates school rules, even if it is due to the alleged crime, must be treated as a disruptive force.

To this I say a resounding and emphatic NO. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, and NO. Look, obviously they are looking at two of their students in what was initially a he said she said thing. They could not have known, at the time, what the deal was. I accept that. But couldn't any of them have said, "Look, we don't know what happened. But there is a chance that he did, in fact, assault this girl. Even though it was not prosecuted, we don't know what happened. Perhaps we should talk to the girl privately and see if we can resolve this issue quietly so that we don't look like a bunch of heartless raging assholes."

Even if they looked at it coldly as a PR problem (which it clearly became), they would have been more human than the way they ended up being.

Just because they didn't KNOW there was a rape doesn't mean they should not have acted as if there MIGHT have been a rape. Instead, they treated the jock as if he had done nothing wrong (which they, as you said, did not actually KNOW), and treated the girl as a pariah and problem student.

Fuck that and fuck them. Had they had any decency or brains, we would not be talking about them right now, as we would not even know about the damn story.

[Jester]

Several times here I have been asked the simple question, "What would you have the school do?" After all, the guy was not prosecuted with the crime that was alleged against him.

What would I have them do? I would have them extend the same benefit of the doubt to her that they clearly extended to him. Which they clearly did not do.

No, he was not found guilty in a court of law. Yes, the grand jury declined to prosecute. While in the eyes of the law that means he is not guilty of the crime, that does not in reality make him innocent of it. And the school administrators surely know this. But they extended him every benefit of the doubt, allowing him to play without any repercussions for his alleged crimes.

They extended no such benefit of the doubt to the girl, which they could have and should have done. They made no attempt to address her issues with what she was being forced to as part of her cheerleading duties in regards to her alleged attacker. They did not approach her in any way to attempt to work something out, but acted unilaterally to remove her "disruptive" presence.

Where was the benefit of the doubt they extended to the athlete? I hate to beat a dead and rotting horse, but the school system is NOT the justice system, and does not operate under the same rules and restrictions, nor should it. They could have extended her the benefit of the doubt they extended him. No, he was not convicted of or prosecuted for the alleged crime, but she still alleged it against him, and they should have taken a moment and asked themselves why. Was she a vindictive spurned would-be lover? Was she actually the victim of a crime? Or, even if no crime had been committed, might she believe she had been the victim of a sexual assault?

When you don't know what happened, but you extend the benefit of the doubt to an alleged attacker but not the supposed victim, something is seriously wrong with you. And they didn't.

[Andara Bledin]

One of the things lost in the cheerleader case is the reactions of classmates. It wasn't just that the school administration failed to make any accommodation for what she claimed had happened to her, but most of her classmates chose to side with him, making the entire school situation very difficult for her. The request to not hang around in the the same common areas as him stemmed from the disruption that other students were causing because they took the side of the popular jock over the cheerleader.

And, considering that there were allegations that the District Attorney was spreading rumors about things that were said during the initial grand jury hearing in an attempt to discredit her, there was likely a very strange atmosphere around the entire case at the time.

It's easy enough for us to stand back, with the news reports after the fact and claim to know how everybody should have acted, but none of us was there. None of us knows what kind of reactions from other parties they also had to deal with.

^-.-^

[Jester]

The request to not hang around in the the same common areas as him stemmed from the disruption that other students were causing because they took the side of the popular jock over the cheerleader.

Which brings up the question: was this reported as fact by the school administrators, or was it independently corroborated? Because it would certainly not be the first time that an administration of an institution had lied to bolster their credibility or their side in a controversial case.

That being said, let's say for the moment that this was true, and was independently corroborated.

So what?

A popular jock is GOING to be popular, and there are going to be people who take his side no matter what, even if he is proven to be a rapist scumbag. It happens all the time.

Ignoring the whole rape thing for a moment, let's look at the claim: that others students were causing a disruption because both students were in the same common area.

Some important words here. Specifically, "other students were causing a disruption." So, what does a school administration normally do when students cause disruptions? Right! They discipline them. So...where was the discipline here? Oh, that's right: centered square on the head of the accusing student. Silly me, I forgot that minor piece of information.

Let's forget this case for just a moment, and use a hypothetical case, wherein school administrators asked a student to not go to the common areas, because other students were causing a disruption when the student did, because the student in question was black. Or gay. Or Jewish. Or Islamic. Or crippled. I know, I know...these ARE different things, as they are illegal, and they are not based on claims or he said she said, but on facts. But at one point in our history, it would not have been at all uncommon for such a thing to occur. "Don't go to the cafeteria, Tawanda...the white students cause a disruption every time you do, and we just can't have that."

If such a situation happened, the majority of the people here (most of whom I believe are thoughtful and intelligent) would be calling on the school administration to ACT LIKE THE ADMINISTRATION and discipline the disrupting students. Why? Because it would be the right thing to do.

As it would be here. Students give Mary shit when she shows up in the yard because she accused Brendan of violating her sexually? Discipline those students. Period.

And, considering that there were allegations that the District Attorney was spreading rumors about things that were said during the initial grand jury hearing in an attempt to discredit her, there was likely a very strange atmosphere around the entire case at the time.

And if the DA was doing that, he should have been disciplined too, as that is highly unethical, and possibly illegal, depending upon local laws regarding the conduct of officers of the court as it pertains to legal cases.

It's easy enough for us to stand back, with the news reports after the fact and claim to know how everybody should have acted, but none of us was there. None of us knows what kind of reactions from other parties they also had to deal with.

No, none of us knows the full story, of course. We can only react to the story we are given, and say what should have been done based upon what we know. Or perhaps even suggest what should have been done if A, B, and C were all true, which of course we can't know.

But I will NOT sit here and feel any sympathy at all for the school administrators for "what they had to deal with" in this case, because it just does not compare to what the cheerleader had to deal with, whether or not ther rape actually occurred. If it did not, she was still ostracized and treated like shit by the administration. If it did happen, as I believe it did based upon what I have read, she had to deal with that AND the bullshit shoved down her throat by these cowardly administrators.

Frankly, I don't care what they had to deal with...she had to deal with worse. So, fuck them. They nauseate me.

[Canarr]

They extended no such benefit of the doubt to the girl, which they could have and should have done. They made no attempt to address her issues with what she was being forced to as part of her cheerleading duties in regards to her alleged attacker. They did not approach her in any way to attempt to work something out, but acted unilaterally to remove her "disruptive" presence.

You are right; that's what they should've done.

But I will NOT sit here and feel any sympathy at all for the school administrators for "what they had to deal with" in this case, because it just does not compare to what the cheerleader had to deal with, whether or not ther rape actually occurred. If it did not, she was still ostracized and treated like shit by the administration. If it did happen, as I believe it did based upon what I have read, she had to deal with that AND the bullshit shoved down her throat by these cowardly administrators.

You are right, again. I concede your point and withdraw any arguments to the contrary; there really were no truly extenuating circumstances preventing the administration from doing the right thing and protecting the girl from her fellow students' behaviorr.