by NOAH KUTTLER
"So this is how it is. The innocent suffer, the guilty go free, and truth and fiction are pretty much interchangeable. ...There is neither a Santa Claus, nor an Easter Bunny, and there no angels watching over us. Things just happen for no reason, and nothing makes any sense." Veronica Mars
"So this is how it is. The innocent suffer, the guilty go free, and truth and fiction are pretty much interchangeable. ...There is neither a Santa Claus, nor an Easter Bunny, and there no angels watching over us. Things just happen for no reason, and nothing makes any sense." Veronica Mars
The relevance of this case to Mason’s situation as I see it is that a jury found Wassell 97% responsible for her own rape. When I learned this case I thought it was preposterous, how can anyone be responsible for their own rape? Did she shout “NO” while manually guiding the shaft inside of her? Did she assume some type of vertical splits stance, in the nude, and then knock her attacker off balance so that his penis fell in? Apparently the answer in this case was that compared to the hotel she was 97% responsible for the rape, not compared to her attacker. For me this was unacceptable, and I thought it might be something for the people out in internet land to ponder when they tell Mason he ought to press charges. A court of law can be a very unsympathetic place. In that case no one questioned that Wassell was raped, Wassel was not in any way acquainted with her attacker, and Wassell was not a porn star. Still, Wassell was found in a court of law, before a jury of her peers, to be 97% responsible for her rape. How certain can anyone be that if Mason went to court he would be able to protect anyone from a future attack? Mason has very reasonably pointed out that adults should be responsible for their own actions, and I am trying to point out that the court very frequently says the same thing Mason has said. Going to court is not a choice to be made lightly; it requires a well thought out decision and consultation with a legal expert.
To that end, I should also point out that this was a case before an Illinois court in 1989 and probably not at all indicative of the law in Texas. I am not suggesting that action in court is inherently a bad idea in this case. I just think that writers out there suggesting that Mason’s choice not to press charges indicates some sort of deceit on his part are not as familiar with the law as they would like everyone to believe. The choice to go to court should be made by a legal professional who has a chance to examine the relevant law and the evidence available. The choice not to go to court can reflect case law like Wassell v. Adams, a case reflecting a jury who would not likely have come to a decision that would have vindicated Mason or protected any future victims. Despite the interaction of intelligent and skilled professionals in the legal arena and a jury of one’s peers, the court is at the end of the day a forum for no more than legal transactions and cannot be relied upon for proclamations of truth.
Mason’s choice regarding legal inaction should be viewed as a personal reflection on the inadequacy of the court system and cannot reasonably be used to infer that he is lying about his attack. Anyone who knew the first thing about the law could tell you that much, and thus we must assume that those attacking Mason’s choice are misinformed or naïve, and I hope we can all find some sympathy in our hearts for their ridiculous know-it-all grand standing. Everyone will be able to remember fighting with their parents or a teacher as a young child, insisting that they were right and that they knew exactly what the answer to a situation was, only to find out over time that mom and dad or Mrs. Crabapple at Malow Junior High probably had it right. Apparently, some people take more time to grow out of this phase than others, and I for one will be keeping the maturity and developmental progress of those individuals in my prayers. God speed, foolish queens, God speed.
15 comments:
And to respond to the question "How can anyone assure mason can protect anyone else from being attacked" is simple. Yes the court can be very unsympathetic but is it not reasonable to say that because mason has the KNOWLEDGE to say people are responsible for their own actions and he is somewhat to blame for his attack; that would give him the extra wow factor that puts him above everyone else? they dont think that they are in any way to blame..but mason does..the jury will see that
Er, Noah, perhaps in your second year of law school, they will teach you the difference between a criminal complaint and a civil case for damages. Just briefly:
1. A criminal case is brought to court by a prosecutor (or not), following a complaint and an investigation. Mason decided not to pursue his complaint or cooperate with the investigation, so the cops are closing the case. If the creep were found guilty, then Mason would have a good case to sue for monetary damages -- if he had any to get.
2. The civil negligence case you cite, which is nearly 20 years old, was obviously for monetary damages. The jury didn't think the motel owners were at fault to the extent they should have their business handed over to the victim; or maybe their insurance company fought the case with highly competent attorneys. Either way, this gets back to the nebulous question of how hot is too hot for a cup of McDonalds coffee if you spill it on yourself.
There's a little more to it than your article indicates. She was awarded some money by the jury, and the judgment was upheld on appeal.
http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/865/849/102925/
A jury composed of four women and three men found that the Adamses had indeed been negligent and that their negligence had been a proximate cause of the assault, and the jury assessed Susan's damages at $850,000, which was the figure her lawyer had requested in closing argument. But in addition the jury found that Susan had been negligent too--and indeed that her negligence had been 97 percent to blame for the attack and the Adamses' only 3 percent. So, following the approach to comparative negligence laid down in Alvis v. Ribar, 85 Ill.2d 1, 52 Ill.Dec. 23, 421 N.E.2d 886 (1981)--the decision in which the Supreme Court of Illinois abolished the common law rule that contributory negligence is a complete bar to a negligence suit--the jury awarded Susan only $25,500 in damages. This happens to be approximately the midpoint of the psychologist's estimate-- $20,000 to $30,000 --of the expense of the therapy that the psychologist believes Susan may need for her post-traumatic stress.
----
In fact, she had opened the door for the rapist, and had a chance to get away that she didn't take. So it's easy to see why the jury thought she was negligent.
Juries don't go on "wow" factor.
Sometimes you pick your battles. People are acting out against Mason as if he did not take action, but he did more than most, he reported it and made it a matter of public record. The assailant now has a case on his file.
If you take a case to court, you want a conviction. If you do it and don't get a conviction then you can't bring the assailant back for the same charges. People can make the mistake of rushing action without thinking first and by not being in the correct mindset. Court cases are traumatic and lawyers are hard on people. You have to be ready especially in this type of case.
Mason did not stand by and do nothing, he did the most important thing, he filed a report.
Let him weigh his options. He knows his "proof factor". As much as we love to believe in the law, it is imperfect. Mason can be called in regarding his case in the future if another gets attacked. It is sad to say but abuse cases sometimes require multiple cases to convict someone.
I understand 100% why Mason would not want to relive all the crap. And if a jury can reward someone who spills hot coffee on themselves a court victory against McDonald's because McDonald's did not do enough to warn the plaintiff that the coffee could burn them if it was spilled, I don;t have much faith in the court system.
I hope you both feel vindicated hiding behind an almost 20 year old case. But your right; Masons the slut that allowed him in your home to begin with and I can't see how anyone could see it any other way beyond his fault.
Alright lets try and remember the point of my post. I picked a 20 year old case not to provide legal advice of any kind, that is not my place. The point was to illustrate the fact that a court can be a place that is much more complicated than what is depicted on TV. By using a 20 year old case I hoped to make a point without actually weighing in on whether or not the victims here should bring charges. Using an obsolete case is a away of making that point, that the court room is NOT the way it is depicted and television and NOT a forum for establishing any truths before the public. Anyone who doubts Mason now could very well choose to doubt him after he got a verdict in court.
In the very obsolete case I bring up a woman who was definitely raped in the eyes of the court was still handed a verdict that would do very little to accomplish the goals people seem to believe Mason could further in the court room. The fact that a person can be legally responsible for their own rape means that the doubters might still not be satisfied after the case, and the public might not be that much safer.
I appreciate the difference between a criminal complaint and a civil complaint, my point was not to advocate one over another. I only wanted to point out that going to court is not always going to satisfy the common persons desire for a good guy and a bad guy, or to clarify who was right and who was wronge in a situation. That is what I thought happened in Wasell v. Adams, it looks like the woman was the "good guy", the victim, and that justice ought to serve her. But the court was not ruling on justice, the court was ruling on how the evidence should be used to allocate damages. I hope that is a clear point, I did not mean to represent this post as a rationale for any particular course of action Mason might or might not take. I just wanted people to keep in mind that staying out of court can be all about wanting to avoid the mechanisms of the court.
I really do not believe Mason needs any case to hide behind to make his own points valid, nor does he need me to speak on his behalf in this matter AT ALL. My point was about the legal system and how I felt that many people had misinterpreted the role it plays in allocating truth. I do not believe that staying out of court reflects on a persons honesty in any way, and I thought this old obsolete case could help me convey my beliefs.
"The fact that a person can be legally responsible for their own rape means that the doubters might still not be satisfied after the case, and the public might not be that much safer."
Mason pressing charges and seeing the case through should have NOTHING to do with satisfying the doubters, and should not be predicated on the certainty of a conviction. You would seem to be arguing that all rape victims should weigh the certainty of conviction before pressing charges, and that is not how I see it at all.
One does indeed have a civic duty to the community and to one's fellow citizens to assist in the apprehension of predators REGARDLESS of the fact that the prosecution may not be successful.
How will Mason feel when he reads a future report that one of his fellow porn stars was stalked and brutally raped by this same perpetrator, who would perhaps have been behind bars if he had pursued the case? Even were his case to result in acquittal for the perp, his identity would be known and he thus would be very unlikely to have the opportunity to strike again.
Finally, I really don't think the case you cited is germane. When balancing the liability of the hotel against the victim's, the jury came down on the side of the hotel. HOWEVER, that is not to say that if the rapist had been caught in her case that he would not have been convicted. It's applss and oranges.
The fact that the case is not germane is kind of the reason I picked it, Will G. You are right on in making that point though, and so I hope to encourage your's and other's further respectful discussion with my response. Were I to have written about a similar Texas case, and interpreted that case for or against pressing charges that would be a lot like advising these victims, and that is not my place. Instead, I wanted to bring up another perspective on the courts.
Let me try it from another angle. Putting yourself in the shoes of the victims here, and accepting that the allegations of certain behavior by the police are true, how compelled would you feel towards any particular civic duty right now? You have been verbally abused for being a porn star, despite the fact that porn is legal and beloved by many. You have been required to jump through hoops for the sake of having a rape kit paid for that the state says should be paid for. At the end of this you say to yourself, HOORAH CIVIC DUTY?
Also, I do not agree that a criminal case automatically identifies a perpetrator or makes people outside of the suit safer. This is certainly not the goal of a criminal suit or the parties involved. While it is certainly an admirable goal, and I can see and respect your passion for combating violent crime, I think you go too far in assuming that criminal charges automatically equal a win for the community. It is not a given that the defendant will be identified to the public, though that does frequently happen. What is even less likely is that evidence of specific criminal action would be available for others to see.
In the event that evidence is stricken by the court en route to an eventual victory for the defendant, what may happen is that people will get the impression that the plaintiff lied or that the allegations were weak. The truth may be that procedural errors or police errors resulted in inadmissable evidence that would otherwise condemn a criminal. When the public eventually see's what comes out of the court, they may actually be decieved as to what really went on. Unless this trial is as big as the OJ Simpson murder trial, you really can't expect to be privy to the details of the case. Imagine if that case had been tried behind closed doors and OJ was set free. Without knowing about ill fitting gloves, botched DNA evidence, and the eccentricites of the lawyers, judges, witnesses, and police officers involved OJ might have left the court looking innocent. I always felt that he was guilty not withstanding the verdict, but I had the benefit of daily coverage of the case. Without it, would I have benefitted from that trial? Would I have known to beware that man? I am not convinced.
Demanding a trial from a victim just seems rash and unsympathetic to me. There is no predicting the outcome of such a trial, not the verdict it would reach or the lasting effect the proceedings might have. I do agree that violent crime is horrible and that when measures can be taken to combat violent crime that is great. I simply do not agree that the actions everyone seems to be demanding from Mason are obviously actions that would combat violent crime. Whether or not that is true is only known to the victims, the police officers, and lawyers who are familiar with the facts.
I do not believe a victim is under any burden to the community he lives in, that burden is on the police and if they failed to compel an investigation where an investigation and trial could serve the public, that does not reflect upon the victim. I think you have a genuine concern that a dangerous individual is probably out there and that this may be a missed opportunity to prevent future crime. I simply do not agree that it was Mason who missed that opportunity, or that he can be expected to save us all by marching into court. That is just not the way these things work.
Noah, I appreciate that response. I'm a bit puzzled by your statement that you chose to cite that case because it WASN'T germane. Also, it seemed to me that one of your reasons for citing it was precisely to advise victims, Mason and Marc specifically, to be wary of entering into the court system because it may be biased against victims.
If Mason is telling the truth about the shabby way he was treated by the police, I see that as a poor excuse for not following through. Hell, he could file an official complaint with the proper agency in Dallas that handles such matters in addition to pressing charges. Maybe even file a civil suit against the department. Again, by doing nothing he might be keeping some very bad cops on the street. I understand what you're saying about the effect that experience might have had on his willingness to deal with law enforcement in this matter, but there are other remedies he could have sought other than dropping out of the case.
Were this case to have gone to trial, I guarantee you that it would have attracted some amount of press, from the gay press at least, and the perp's name would have been reported on, in addition to the details of the court proceedings. Just look how much coverage he got by merely blogging about it.
The detective who was quoted by the Dallas Voice said the ONLY reason that this case isn't going anywhere is because of Mason's unwillingness to cooperate. Otherwise, assuming his story is real, the rapist would most likey have been apprehended weeks ago. Mason supposedly had the guy's wallet and knew his name. That is so much more than police usually have to go on, and I still find it mind-boggling that Mason didn't turn that evidence in.
Noah,
You mention the O.J. Simpson case. He was acquitted in the criminal prosecution and then had a $35 million judgment levied against him in the civil case if I remember correctly. But he was the perpetrator of the crime.
Michael Jackson was prosecuted in his first molestation case, and blew off the trial by paying the alleged victim not to testify. That is equivalent to losing a civil case for monetary damages in one sense; it was just a shortcut. Then he won the second criminal case, but probably paid off the alleged victim anyway, because a civil case could have still been brought against him.
Hey, maybe Mason should sue the landlord of his apartment building for negligence because there was no rape detector next to the smoke detector. That is analogous to the case you cited. The motel owners didn't rape that woman, the rapist did. The jurors didn't say she was responsible for the rape; obviously the rapist was. They said she didn't take adequate, sensible precautions.
I understand where you are coming from Noah, but this is American law we are talking about here. As the world knows, the American government is, let's face it I'm going to be honest with you, corrupt. There is no sense of justice in that community. When you were talking about how Wassell was 97% responsible, then shouldn't the 3% on the other side be dealt with as well? See, signs of corruption with American law and order.
As you said in the last paragraph, it was Mason's choice to not press charges. I think to be honest that was the better option. Less media coverage=happiness for everyone.
The last final blow against these people would be that the majority of the "American" population (well actually, you aren't American because your ancestors were European, so basically America=New Europe) are too immature to realise that this is very serious and Mason's life would be in danger. If it was my way, then the entire media network would collapse instantaneously.
As a final point, curse all of those who seek to destroy the world that we have. It may be a shit hole, and we were too greedy, so the planet's gonna die, but if they wish to harm us, then I hope Karma will deal with them appropiately.
If any of you have problems with my statement, then you are more than welcome to state your view as well. But I will not back down on my side, believe me. These old bones don't know the meaning of surrender.
Take care
Ciao
Xx_RavsDesire_xX
Noah,
A first year law student can be excused for muddled thinking - in fact it can be expected - but not for the following nonsense:
"I do not believe a victim is under any burden to the community he lives in, that burden is on the police and if they failed to compel an investigation where an investigation and trial could serve the public, that does not reflect upon the victim."
The police do not compel an investigation. And the prosecutor (not the police) certainly can't go forward with a trial absent testimony from the alleged victim.
There are a score of reasons why a rape victim might elect not to cooperate with a prosecution. And you are correct that Mason's election should not give rise to a presumption that he lied about the incident. But I do suggest you get a little more training in how to read cases, and about the U.S. system of jurisprudence, under your belt before you lecture people about the law again. It is is field in which you should be gaining, not giving, knowledge.
Good luck to you in your studies.
Think this is an excellent post. Way to go Noah!
I am appalled at the reaction to many out there that seem to think that experience Mason and Noah have endured is something they need to be judge and jury on. What these two men have been through is something they are having to deal with and how they decide what is the best course of action for themselves should be respected.
Rolland, I hate to appall you any further, but I don't see anyone trying to be judge and jury here. My point, anyway, is that a judge and jury in a court of law are exactly the ones who should be hearing about this matter. Mason and Marcus venting on a blog is all well and good but it's ultimately useless.
Post a Comment