Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.
Georgia rape case dismissed because of victim's sexual past
feministing.com — A college student was ordered to pay $150,000 for the court costs of her attacker, after her case was dismissed because according to the prosecution neither the defendant, nor anyone else for that matter, would have to use any type of drug to convince Plaintiff to participate in sexual conduct.
sbader- 20 diggs
- digg it
- satanatnmtedu, on 05/15/2008, -1/+5It is hard to know the real story since the site is certainly biased. But, if the allegations are true, the judge should be removed at minimum.
- hoppipolla, on 05/15/2008, -0/+4Terrible...
- sbader, on 05/15/2008, -0/+3Normally i prefer to link to articles instead of blogs but ussually when i do link to blogs it's because they are linking to lots of different articles. One of the more intereting detaild discussed in the articles that isn't mentioned in the blog is that the accused is: "Daniel Day, the son of state Rep. Burke Day, whose family founded the Days Inn hotel chain." And I'm wondering if this isn't a case of one person being able to buy better lawyers than the other.
- lebrad, on 05/16/2008, -0/+5"As far as the claim that Day gave Ross a rape drug, defense counsel responded, “neither Day, nor anyone else for that matter, would have to use any type of drug to convince Plaintiff to participate in sexual conduct.”
In the eyes of the defense counsel this woman is un-rapable. Disgusting. - imacommi, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2I don't know what kind of lawyers these people are using but I don't know how they awarded a charge for 150k. I also don't think this is right, especially if the rape happend. Shouldn't this be a criminal trial too? I can't read through blogs at work so if anybody could post a link I would much appreciate it.
- imacommi, on 05/16/2008, -1/+2I found a website and a forum from a local news site that gives a bit more detail than this description (again, I cannot visit blogs at work so I had to search elsewhere). Normally, I would think that this is just a case of the rich getting over on someone who is less fortunate but I don't know about the financial situation of the woman and I later came to find out that Mr. Day and Ms. Ross had actually dated prior to the charges being brought; so I think there is a chance that she was just vindictive and bitter although I will not speculate until I see more evidence. This was also a civil trial, which explains why the attorney's fees were awarded although I still happen to think those fees are a bit extensive...
http://www.11alive.com/news/article_news.aspx?stor ...
Article
http://www.topix.com/county/bibb-ga/2008/04/woman- ...
message board on the topic.- sbader, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3I was reading that article you listed and this is the first thing that popped out at me. "A judge determined lacerations do not prove rape, and that she had to list her past sexual partners, since only virgins can bring a case for sexual battery in civil court." WTF does being a virgin have to do with wether someone raped you or not?
- imacommi, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Agreed, I thought that was BS too. I don't think past sexual history should matter. Even a prostitute can be raped. Who you sleep with shouldn't matter. But I can see where the slippery slope is, for instance If I want to tie up my gf or hand cuff her or choke her or pull her hair (girls like this stuff sometimes) I could probably be charged with rape if she could prove I did these things, unless her past sexual history is made available and it is taken into account that she likes this kind of kinky stuff.
I don't really like the idea of having to allow past sexual history, but in some instances it might be relevant. I once had a girl that told me to choke and slap her in bed, and it really scared me because I had never done that before and I realized that I was opening myself up to some liability if I actually did this stuff.... After I did it there were no problems between me and the girl but imagine if some girl asked you to do that kind of stuff and then cried rape. Not sure exactly how I feel about this but it's interesting to think about.
- imacommi, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Agreed, I thought that was BS too. I don't think past sexual history should matter. Even a prostitute can be raped. Who you sleep with shouldn't matter. But I can see where the slippery slope is, for instance If I want to tie up my gf or hand cuff her or choke her or pull her hair (girls like this stuff sometimes) I could probably be charged with rape if she could prove I did these things, unless her past sexual history is made available and it is taken into account that she likes this kind of kinky stuff.
- sbader, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3I was reading that article you listed and this is the first thing that popped out at me. "A judge determined lacerations do not prove rape, and that she had to list her past sexual partners, since only virgins can bring a case for sexual battery in civil court." WTF does being a virgin have to do with wether someone raped you or not?
- reticent1, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2From the posting, for those who can't read blogs:
...Her lawsuit against Day is now on appeal to the Georgia Supreme Court, in part because of the victim-blaming actions of the trial court judge. Judge Phillip Brown, despite a Georgia rape shield law, compelled Ross to disclose every person she had ever dated, or engaged in any sexual activity with, including their names, dates of interaction, and contact information. This evidence was supposedly to show “consent;” the actual purpose was to humiliate the victim and discourage her and other victims from pursuing these cases. Under Georgia state law, and federal law, a victim’s sexual history with third parties is supposed to be irrelevant. The result of this case is that any victim who brings a civil claim for sexual battery in Georgia must be prepared to discuss all of her previous sexual partners. The judge ultimately found Ross was not raped in part because, as all that testimony showed, she was not a virgin.
...
The judge found there was no evidence to support her claims of rape, in large part because Ross did not remember anything from the encounter: “There’s no witnesses in there. There was no evidence. It’s a closed door. And there’s no possibility that there could be any proof that there was rape...”
This was after the judge had dismissed the evidence: Ross could have received lacerations and redness documented in a rape kit from shaving, and “[b]ruises can come with a bump into furniture or from other causes.” As far as the claim that Day gave Ross a rape drug, defense counsel responded, “neither Day, nor anyone else for that matter, would have to use any type of drug to convince Plaintiff to participate in sexual conduct.”
The judge found that since Ross and Day had previously had a sexual relationship, Ross should have known her claims were “frivolous... there was no reasonable belief that a court would accept Plaintiff’s claims...”
/
This is clearly a case of a victim-blaming, misogynist judge, who is apparently unaware that a victim's sexual past is neither relevant to a rape trial, nor legal to use in a rape trial. This judge is part of a system, which is part of a society, that considers misogyny, rape-apologism, victim blaming, and other attrocious, hateful, thoughtless (and irrational) beliefs to be valid reasonable points of view.
I despair for humanity. - samanthaess, on 05/20/2008, -0/+0Ladies, I'm very disappointed in our attacking Mr. Day. I happen to know Ms. Ross and the defendant. I attended Mercer with both of them and knew them very well. As a character witness, I can tell you that Daniel Day would never rape a girl, and Melanie Ross is spiteful enough to bring false allegations against him. For the record, Daniel broke up with Melanie. I was with HER when he did it. She called him dozens of times afterwards, and I was the one telling her to stop. Why she claims he assaulted her before they broke up is beyond me... maybe it was to add credibility to her story. While Day was a playboy of sorts at Mercer, he never needed to, nor would he ever sexually assault a woman. I say this as a devout feminist.
To those skeptics, please check out the link to the forums that imacommi posted above. I had never seen this until today, and it speaks volumes to the case at hand. I am extremely disappointed in how this article was written. If we want to be taken seriously as women, we need to report the facts as fairly as possible. Feministing.com has now been removed from my bookmarks, because now I can't take them seriously. First of all, yes, Day does come from a wealthy family. Everyone at Mercer knew that. Melanie knew this before she started dating him. The idea that this somehow got him out of rape charges is ludicrous. If anything, I feel that Melanie and her attorney brought this case against him in hopes of getting some form of a settlement. Think about it. If there was no evidence in this case, then why even pursue it? Also, and here's what I've been saving up for, I was at the bar the night Melanie claims she was raped. Melanie couldn't keep her hands off Daniel. She looked trashy. I hate saying that, but I think everyone knows what I'm talking about when they see a girl kissing all over a guy in public. The notion that Day raped HER should be discarded and turned around. She looked like the aggressive player that night.
All in all, ladies, we need to accept the fact that some cries of rape are false. Some women get their feelings hurt and do silly things. In this case, Day broke up with Melanie and didn't give her a good reason. This upset her. I saw it firsthand. Before we crucify Day for something that several courts decided he didn't do, let's be fair and look at his side of the story.
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is