• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

California: teen rape victim held in jail to ensure testimony

Should rape victims ever be jailed?

  • In this case it's ok to help put him behind bars

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • It's never acceptable

    Votes: 12 52.2%
  • It depends on the case

    Votes: 9 39.1%
  • Other

    Votes: 2 8.7%
  • I don't care, as long as the criminal gets prison time.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    23

herenow1

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
1,686
Reaction score
928
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
At first glance I thought this was in a ME country, as I didn't know this could even be legal! This guy appears to be a nazi. I hope the victim isn't black, that's all we need right now!

17-year-old alleged rape victim was taken into custody last week to ensure that she testifies against her suspected sexual abuser. The unnamed teen is a key witness in the trial of Frank William Rackley, a 220-pound tattoo-covered accused rapist with a 20-year criminal history, CBS Sacramento reports.
Despite the girl's failure to appear at a February hearing for the case, her attorney, Lisa Franco, insists that prosecutors could seek alternatives to jailing the teen, such as ankle bracelets.
"She's the victim, that's first and foremost," said Franco, according to News10. "She's suffered a horrible, horrible experience and now she's being treated like the criminal and forced to live with this everyday."
"She's made it clear to the judge she's willing to do anything else," said Franco.
Alleged Rape Victim Jailed: Calif. Teen Held In Custody To Ensure Testimony In Frank Rackley Trial
 
Last edited:
Wow, that's absolutely horrible. She should be released immediately. And if for some reason they are worried that she won't testify, well...if she doesn't testify then she doesn't testify, and they simply don't have a case. That's how the law works, sometimes guilty people go free. The idea of issuing a subpoena for the victim of a heinous crime, and then punishing them if they won't testify, is bizarre and completely goes against the spirit of the law.

Additionally, this kind of stupid crap will discourage future rape victims from reporting the crime in the first place, if they are worried they might be thrown in jail to ensure their testimony.
 
Last edited:
Whoever put her in jail should be ashamed of themselves, and should be put in prison themselves.
 
Let her out now you ****ing idiots! Victims should never be subpoenaed to appear. You can't force them to testify, so what in the Hell are you thinking?
 
At first glance I thought this was in a ME country, as I didn't know this could even be legal! This guy appears to be a nazi. I hope the victim isn't black, that's all we need right now!

Alleged Rape Victim Jailed: Calif. Teen Held In Custody To Ensure Testimony In Frank Rackley Trial

She ignored a subpeona to appear in court. What's illegal about jailing her for that?

It is wrong for a victim to report a crime to the police, identify her attacker, agree with the prosecution to go forward and then decide, "Well, I'm not going to show up."
 
She ignored a subpeona to appear in court. What's illegal about jailing her for that?

It is wrong for a victim to report a crime to the police, identify her attacker, agree with the prosecution to go forward and then decide, "Well, I'm not going to show up."

Commenting that I don't know all the facts of course, you are legally right and it actually is never the victim prosecuting anyone, it is the state. The reason to prosecute the rapists is NOT just on her behalf, but to prevent future victims. If there is positive prove such as physical injuries and dna for which her only testimony really needed is that she had not consented, she does need to be forced to court. She many not want prosecution or is so messed up she can't handle the thought of being in court and in front of him. But what about the future potential rape victims by that man? That is the priority now, not her fear.
 
Commenting that I don't know all the facts of course, you are legally right and it actually is never the victim prosecuting anyone, it is the state. The reason to prosecute the rapists is NOT just on her behalf, but to prevent future victims. If there is positive prove such as physical injuries and dna for which her only testimony really needed is that she had not consented, she does need to be forced to court. She many not want prosecution or is so messed up she can't handle the thought of being in court and in front of him. But what about the future potential rape victims by that man? That is the priority now, not her fear.

It's my understanding that it's rare for the state to go forward if the victim refuses to testify. I could be wrong. I don't disagree with you. I also think that part of this may be protective custody.
 
She ignored a subpeona to appear in court. What's illegal about jailing her for that?

It is wrong for a victim to report a crime to the police, identify her attacker, agree with the prosecution to go forward and then decide, "Well, I'm not going to show up."

She's a mentally unstable rape victim, and you want to put her in prison? You might as well give her a gun.
 
She ignored a subpeona to appear in court. What's illegal about jailing her for that?

It is wrong for a victim to report a crime to the police, identify her attacker, agree with the prosecution to go forward and then decide, "Well, I'm not going to show up."
Yeah, these sensationalist knee-jerk reactions are the fodder for simple minds, as in "Oh my God how dare they, she's the victim!".
 
Yeah, these sensationalist knee-jerk reactions are the fodder for simple minds, as in "Oh my God how dare they, she's the victim!".

Or people who actually give a damn about the well being of the victim.
 
She was raped.

I'm very sorry, but I don't believe being raped automatically makes some mentally unstable. I can't believe you do either.

Does having the **** kicked out of you make you mentally unstable? How about someone trying to murder you? Good grief.
 
I'm very sorry, but I don't believe being raped automatically makes some mentally unstable. I can't believe you do either.

Does having the **** kicked out of you make you mentally unstable? How about someone trying to murder you? Good grief.

It doesn't make one automatically mentally unstable, but it makes me think one could be unstable. And with her actions, it just adds to the evidence. Also, I'm pretty sure you can't force a victim to testify, and you don't need her to go into court to testify, since her contention is most likely not wanting to be in the same room as her attacker. Whoever put her in jail is a unsympathetic bastard, and is unduly punishing the victim. Sicking, plain and simple.
 
She ignored a subpeona to appear in court. What's illegal about jailing her for that?

She was jailed not for committing a crime, but to "ensure her testimony." That is bull****.

It is wrong for a victim to report a crime to the police, identify her attacker, agree with the prosecution to go forward and then decide, "Well, I'm not going to show up."

No it isn't. She's 17 years old, she was raped, and she wanted to report the crime to the police. Never having been a victim of sexual assault myself, I can't begin to imagine how she's feeling, but is it really so unfathomable that she changed her mind about wanting to testify? She's probably terrified. :roll:

joko104 said:
Commenting that I don't know all the facts of course, you are legally right and it actually is never the victim prosecuting anyone, it is the state. The reason to prosecute the rapists is NOT just on her behalf, but to prevent future victims.

Future victims are probably going to be less likely to come forward in the first place, if doing so carries the risk of being thrown in prison if they later decide they don't want to testify.

joko104 said:
If there is positive prove such as physical injuries and dna for which her only testimony really needed is that she had not consented, she does need to be forced to court.

No she doesn't. And this is logically inconsistent; if there is enough proof to convict him without her testimony, then the court can proceed without her testimony. And if there isn't enough proof and she won't testify, then the DA doesn't have a case in the first place.

joko104 said:
She many not want prosecution or is so messed up she can't handle the thought of being in court and in front of him. But what about the future potential rape victims by that man? That is the priority now, not her fear.

This assumes he's guilty. And if there is no physical evidence and no one willing to testify against him, then there is no case to make that he's guilty. If the only evidence is her previous statements to the police, and she isn't willing to make those statements in front of a court, then why should she be forced to? "We need you to testify, even though we have no physical proof that what you said is accurate" is not a good enough reason.

These types of cases shouldn't even be prosecuted in the first place if there is no witness. And throwing the girl in jail is just nasty.
 
She was jailed not for committing a crime, but to "ensure her testimony." That is bull****.



No it isn't. She's 17 years old, she was raped, and she wanted to report the crime to the police. Never having been a victim of sexual assault myself, I can't begin to imagine how she's feeling, but is it really so unfathomable that she changed her mind about wanting to testify? She's probably terrified. :roll:



Future victims are probably going to be less likely to come forward in the first place, if doing so carries the risk of being thrown in prison if they later decide they don't want to testify.



No she doesn't. And this is logically inconsistent; if there is enough proof to convict him without her testimony, then the court can proceed without her testimony. And if there isn't enough proof and she won't testify, then the DA doesn't have a case in the first place.



This assumes he's guilty. And if there is no physical evidence and no one willing to testify against him, then there is no case to make that he's guilty. If the only evidence is her previous statements to the police, and she isn't willing to make those statements in front of a court, then why should she be forced to? "We need you to testify, even though we have no physical proof that what you said is accurate" is not a good enough reason.

These types of cases shouldn't even be prosecuted in the first place if there is no witness. And throwing the girl in jail is just nasty.
Do you have any idea about how many inconsistencies and uninformed innuendo you have in a few paragraphs. I have neither the time nor the inclination to sort this out. You are literally all over the place.
 
Do you have any idea about how many inconsistencies and uninformed innuendo you have in a few paragraphs. I have neither the time nor the inclination to sort this out. You are literally all over the place.

Cool, thanks for your contribution to the thread. I love it when people randomly interject just to say that they aren't going to respond (instead of just ACTUALLY not responding), it really adds to the discussion. :2wave:
 
Cool, thanks for your contribution to the thread. I love it when people randomly interject just to say that they aren't going to respond (instead of just ACTUALLY not responding), it really adds to the discussion. :2wave:

I don't know, I don't think he's too wrong. That's why I'm not going to respond.
 
Your Star said:
Or people who actually give a damn about the well being of the victim.

Wonderful reasoning. So at what point is she not a victim anymore?

If she goes out and steals a car a year later, can she scream, "I was raped last year!" and be considered a victim?
 
Cool, thanks for your contribution to the thread. I love it when people randomly interject just to say that they aren't going to respond (instead of just ACTUALLY not responding), it really adds to the discussion. :2wave:
You know Kandahar, it's like seeing a mess and thinking to yourself that I don't live here and it's not my mess.
 
Wonderful reasoning. So at what point is she not a victim anymore?

If she goes out and steals a car a year later, can she scream, "I was raped last year!" and be considered a victim?

How is stealing a car remotely comparable to not wanting to testify in front of a court about her being raped? She has not been convicted or charged with ANY crime, she is just being held to make sure she can't avoid telling the entire world about how she was violated, while her alleged attacker sits ten feet away from her.
 
Last edited:
At first glance I thought this was in a ME country, as I didn't know this could even be legal! This guy appears to be a nazi. I hope the victim isn't black, that's all we need right now!


Alleged Rape Victim Jailed: Calif. Teen Held In Custody To Ensure Testimony In Frank Rackley Trial

I picked other.If anyone ignores a subpoena to appear in court then they should be jailed.It shouldn't matter if the person who is served a subpoena is an alleged victim or not.
 
She's a mentally unstable rape victim, and you want to put her in prison? You might as well give her a gun.

I know you didn't intend to, but unless you are privvy to info about this person's mental state that the rest of us aren't, you've done a tremendous disservice to women everywhere by suggesting that being raped necessarily makes one unstable.

This just isn't so.
 
Back
Top Bottom