Rape charges dropped against man whose alleged victims ruled incompetent t

[True_Blue]

Rape charges dropped against man whose alleged victims ruled incompetent to testify

LEESVILLE, La. (AP) A man won't face trial on charges he raped three residents of a short-term home for the mentally handicapped because his accusers were found incompetent to testify against him.

Prosecutors dropped six aggravated rape charges Friday against Louis Glenn Dowden, who was a resident training specialist at the Leesville Developmental Center.

Prosecutors said the case rested largely on the victims' testimony and the judge ruled them incompetent to testify because they all have IQs under 70.

Dowden was arrested in March 2002 after state officials began investigating the rape allegations. He was also put on administrative leave by the state.

more....
http://cbsnewyork.com/national/BRF--MentallyHandicap-aa/resources_news_html

[frogbison]

1. I'm sorry

that's more than I care to believe

[Nikia]

2. That sets a bad precedence

A person who rapes mentally handicapped people can't be convicted unless the act is witnessed because the victim's testimony is invalid. I hope that this individual doesn't get hired at another place that serves the mentally handicapped. I hope that not to many would be rapists hear about this case either.

[MaineDem]

3. This seems so wrong

I can't even begin to think of all the consequences of this ruling.

[dsc]

4. That is downright bizarre

Can't they just use physical evidence proving he had sex with them and then call it statutory rape (if they are incompetent to testify then they are incompetent to agree to have sex).

[Mizmoon]

5. Mental health treatment too ...

Rape victims who have had any form of mental health care treatment are also finding their testimony questioned.

And don't think your conversations with your therapist or shrink really are private. Anyone remember Monica Lewinsky's shrink being forced to testify?

[NorthernSpy]

6. But would any of us support finding these people competent...

...if they really aren't?

After all, it is our recognition of their lack of mental competency that protects severely retarded people from things like criminal prosecution and the death penalty.

If there was no objective evidence of rape, and if the purported witnesses were incapable of giving a consistent and accurate account of what was alleged to have happened, then what exactly was the court supposed to do?

[0007]

7. In comparing logic, junior can't stand trial for war crimes because

James Baker III sez he's mentally incompetent and has an IQ under 68.

[AP]

8. Without reading the article, a few points:

Age (mental or physical) is generally not a bar to giving evidence in court. IIUC, the judge will ask the witness a few questions and make a decision about whether the witness appreciates the the difference between right and wrong. If the judge isn't comfortable that the witness knows the difference, the judge will not allow the witnesses evidence into court.

Children often give evidence. But people who don't seem to appreciated the difference between telling the truth and telling lies do not testify. (This is actually a good thing for the witness, because it makes sure that people don't perjure themselves when they don't appreciate the risk.)

Even without the witness testimony, the prosecutor could still persue a prosecution against the defendant. But if the other evidence is weak, they'll drop the charges.

If I had to guess, I'd say that there probably is no other good evidence. If a 70 IQ adult were raped, the key evidence would have to do with consent. Presuming there were physical evidence (which might be unlikely -- it could have been days before the victim happened to mention having sex) that still wouldn't be enough. You'd have to know that the attack wasn't with the victim's consent. The only person who can give that evidence is usually the victim.

It may be possible that this state makes it illegal to have even conentual sex with some category of people these victims fall into (but I doubt the law requires people to give IQ tests to their partners before have conentual sex).

In any event, these stories always sound outrageous, but there's usually more to them. Having said that, it's also often the case that white male judges have a hard time thinking of men having sex with women as a really bad thing and might have a bias in favor of the man.

[Gyre]

9. What AP said.

And I'm a criminal prosecutor.

Gyre