The video is hard to turn away from. A sobbing 16-year-old sits in her bedroom and, staring into a camera, says she has been raped.
This is how CNN covers a story of a 16-year old that posted a video on YouTube after the state attorney in Orange County, Florida dropper her case of being raped. They then go on to warn of the dangers of divulging too much personal information online, and tout the benefits of a counselling service that would probably be more effective. The problem is that the CNN reporter probably did not even bother to read case transcript, available free from the Orange County Clerk of Courts. Instead, the real story broke on The Smoking Gun, which related how the young girl changed her story of a consensual relationship after the case was dismissed, and had cited personal grievances and a break-up as the reason for the complaint. The case sheet itself leads with,
Due to the consensual nature of the sex encounter… I’m using prosecutorial discretion and am not filing the case…
Commentators on the case have wondered if the accused now has a case against her for libel and slander. Others have wondered how a small website could conduct a more thorough investigation than a multi-million dollar international news agency. The power and importance of small media web outlets are only beginning to be felt.
First, the “sex encounter[s]” in question were not “consensual”. The Florida age of consent is 16. The complainant was 15 at the time of said encounters and thus could not consent. The accused knew the complainant’s age.
Second, even if this behaviour had occured in a jurisdiction with a lower age of consent I would not describe the relationship as consensual either. The accused would ply the complainant with alcohol and drugs to make her have sex with him. The fact that the complainant said “yes” does not mean she was not sexually assaulted:
[emphasis added]
Does this sound like a consensual “sex encounter”?
The quotation with how the case sheet leads off really has no bearing on whether the complainant was actually sexually assaulted. I suspect this quote from the prosecutor sheds some light into his exercising of “prosecutorial discretion”:
[emphasis added]
Let that quote sink in for a minute. The complainant was “sexually active” before the incident. As such, the quote seems to suggest, the prosecutor wondered why it would even matter that she was sexually assaulted. It’s not like she was a proverbial quote/unquote “good girl”. She drank, partied and had sex so why should the law protect her? Well, the law should protect everyone equally without relying on tired old sexist paradigms like the Madonna/Whore complex. It didn’t here. That’s the actual “real story”.
I totally agree that it’s prudent to avoid the sexist paradigms you refer to Jacob.
Hear, hear!
If she “was a mere 1 month from her 16th birthday” that means she was 15. Which means she was under the age of consent. Which means she could legally not give her consent. So it was NOT consensual. End of story.
Just when I think we’ve come so far…
Wow Bonnie, that was quick! Then again, you had the advantage of just living up the street.
Thanks for stopping by.
And then there’s a lot to be said for http://www.crystalshinkle.com