For the background, see Echidne. Long story short: 17 year old girl gang-raped at a jock party, rescued by three other women (college soccer players), D.A. decided not to press charges.
The case was reviewed by the state Attorney General's Office,
and brought to a grand jury...which, this week, declined to indict anyone. Apparently they felt there was insufficient evidence...although the Santa Clara County grand jury never talked to the three who saw it all.
So far, so bad. It gets worse: today Debra Saunders writes about the case. The worst part comes in the last graphs:
"The issue isn't whether it's acceptable conduct, the issue is whether it's a crime," argued attorney John Cahners, who represents Steve Rebagliati, whose parents own the home where the party took place."If it is a crime"? What the fuck?
And if it is a crime, is it the same as premeditated rape? It may well be that civil courts are better suited to redress what happened at that March 2007 party.
According to Grolle and another source, the vomit on Jane Doe was not hers. Is it in society's interest to prosecute kids who are months older than Jane Doe for doing things in an alcohol-fueled atmosphere that they never would have done sober or alone? I think there's reasonable doubt.
Let me make it clear for poor dim Debra: if the (underage) girl is passed out drunk, there is no consent. If there is no consent, it's not sex--it's rape. Rape. Is. A. Crime. No motherfucking 'if' about it.
Now the defense attorney knows very well the issue isn't "whether it's a crime"; he knows it is a crime, no whethers about it, and to spin it otherwise is completely despicable. It's also, in a despicable sort of way, part of his job. Not an excuse, but a mitigating factor.
But there's no such mitigation for Debra Saunders. How fucking stupid do you have to be to buy into that despicable spin?
Debra Saunders stupid, I guess.
Update: corrected my misreading of the Chron article.