The local NBC station reports that a Georgia woman is requesting that the state court of appeals reconsider her sexual assault case. The article also indicates her intention to appeal to the state Supreme Court. It appears she was a student at Mercer University in 2003. She claims to have been raped there while at a fraternity house. The original judge in the case:
determined lacerations do not prove rape, and that she had to list her past sexual partners, since only virgins can bring a case for sexual battery in civil court.
I am not aware of any legal virginity requirement* as a prerequisite to pursuing rape charges, particularly when the victim can present corroborating evidence commonly accepted by most courts run by judges of less than 10% Neanderthal heritage - namely, lacerations.
So, it's bad enough this throwback to the 1300s relies on faulty synaptic wiring to reach a conclusion my doormat would know was incorrect, he orders the woman to pay the defendant's legal fees - since, you know, she's not a virgin and therefore cannot be raped. But the real kicker is this - the defendant in this case is Daniel Day, who happens to be the son of Georgia State Representative Burke Day, whose name you just might recognize from the Days Inn hotel chain.
The defendant's attorney maintains his client's innocence, of course, and suggests the victim was only faking it to extort cash out of the family. 'Cause it's such a fun way to spend your time, taking the stand and testifying in your rape case against the guy who (edited 04/03/08 at 4:30 to add the word allegedly, which I've just realized was forgotten when I first posted) assaulted you, and having to lay out your entire life and sexual history for complete strangers to "ooh," and "aah" and envy you over. It's like conga-ing barefoot with Pol Pot across a field of broken glass interspersed with rotting meat. Ooh fun. Sign me up!
The judge's name is not mentioned in this article, but the victim's is. Some people just use up entirely too much air for no good purpose.
* I recognize that civil law differs from criminal, and that for a very long time women, and their virginity, were treated, and considered under law, as men's property. The civil case, in those days, would have arisen from the father's loss of money (in terms of having to provide a larger dowry to form a less favorable marraige, or in terms of thereby being saddled with the care of his damaged goods for the rest of her life). I am not, however, aware of any such law currently on Georgia's books. If I am mistaken in this, please let me know so I can begin writing the appropriate letters.
