They think that it’s Orange County out there.

Can someone help out an ignorant Brit here? “Orange” makes me think of Orangemen, the Orange Order, and the anti-Catholic bigotry prevalent in Ireland and parts of Scotland. What is “Orange County” supposed to mean?

That would be Lake Oswego.

This may seem odd, but it is a conviction

There’s nothing in the fourteenth amendment which says that the state can’t call someone a rude name without due process.

In my perhaps mechanical understanding of the charges against this young woman, it seems to me that the prosecutor now must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt,

- that she was not raped by the men involved, and
- that she made her charges with some evil motive.

The process is supposed to be mechanical in the sense that mean the word, but the elements of the crime that would need to be proved are:

- that she made a report to the police.
- that there was a substantive false statement in it.
- that the false statement was not made in good faith.

My elements 2 and 3 correspond roughly with yours, but showing the existance of a substantive false statement does not necessarily mean that they have to show that the rape did not happen, or that it wasn’t by the accused men. As a hypothetical example, consider a case in which the complainant alleges that she was raped, and that certain injuries she suffered were a result of the rape. If it could be proven that her injuries were self-inflicted, or otherwise significantly inconsistent with her testimony, then that would satisfy my element 2 without in any way proving that she wasn’t raped.

I personally think that unless the situation is truly outrageous, having the accused rapists get off scott free is enough. Turning around and making criminal charges against the victim?? Tell me this doesn’t discourage the reporting of crime. Come on.

She’s an alledged victim. Calling her a ‘victim’ and expressing outrage that those accused (but not convicted) of raping her haven’t been punished is tantamount to presuming them guilty, your use of the word ‘accused’ notwithstanding. If we’ve seen little evidence - beyond the testimony of three men - that she made a false report, we’ve seen none at all - beyond the testimony of one woman - that they raped her.

- that she was not raped by the men involved, and
- that she made her charges with some evil motive.

Tough job, I would think. My guess is that the state will quietly give up at this point.

I personally think that unless the situation is truly outrageous, having the accused rapists get off scott free is enough. Turning around and making criminal charges against the victim?? Tell me this doesn’t discourage the reporting of crime. Come on.

The bottom line, Naemura said, is that people can’t use the criminal justice system to further their own ends.

This case should not deter legitimate victims from reporting crimes, he said.

I have yet to see any compelling evidence that this woman is not a legitimate victim.

“Legitimate” victims will most certainly be deterred from reporting crimes, because obviously their own belief that they’re legitimate is not worth shit.

As far as not having a record, in the military, summary court martial proceedings are not transcribed ever. And their appeals are very limited.

There’s an old saying: Military justice is to justice as military music is to music.

Well, you in Oregon know best I guess. It sounds like a waste of taxpayer money (news flash: maintaining courts is not cheap) to have a preliminary “trial” which the defendant can then ignore and we can start all over.

Thought. Is this maybe like a “preliminary hearing” here? (Or do you have those too?)

To wit, before anyone can be charged in a criminal matter in California, the prosecutor needs an indictment, which he or she does not have the power to produce. An indictment is produced either at a “preliminary hearing” (before a judge) or by grand jury. The standard is not, “beyond a reasonable doubt” but rather just, is there enough evidence to justify a trial. (This is intended to weed out cases where the prosecution just doesn’t have anything much.)

If that’s what was going on, she wasn’t “convicted” at all of anything, just bound over for trial. But. It seems from the newspaper article that she could actually be sentenced on the basis of this hearing, which does NOT happen here.

Very odd from a California lawyer’s perpective, but different strokes and all that.

They think that it’s Orange County out there.

In all fairness. I grew up in Orange County, California, and while it’s in many ways a bizarre place, they have heard of court reporters there. And use them even. In every trial. Imagine.

As far as not having a record, in the military, summary court martial proceedings are not transcribed ever. And their appeals are very limited.

I just hope the trial happens soon–I’m thinking she’ll win in front of a jury, especially if the trial attorney calls some kind of psychiatric expert witness.

Why does this obviously half-assed court have the power to imprison anybody for anything?

Apparently it doesn’t. She appears to be entitled to a new trial from scratch.

From what I can see, there hasn’t been a trial or a conviction, in the meaningful “due process” senses of the word. It’s just some silly hoops they make defendants jump through prior to the real trial.

All kidding aside, though, it is one of the more right-leaning corners of town, also. Most people in Portland are under the impression that it’s the lower classes out on the east side who bring us our regressive moments, but actually it’s the WASPy suburban upper class “family friendly” weirdos in Beaverton that are the most consistently reactionary when it comes to voting and social policy. They think that it’s Orange County out there.

Why does this obviously half-assed court have the power to imprison anybody for anything?

—Myca