I was summoned to court today. I showed up this morning and then I was grouped with 65 people that were also summoned to court.
We were informed that we would potentially serve as jurors in court. It wasn't long before we were told we would be deciding on a case involving a man who was accused of child molestation.
We were told the girl was under 14. They read the charges and he was accused of sticking a vibrator in her anus.
If convicted, it would be his third offense of a felony and he would serve a minimum of 25 years in prison and a maximum of 99 years. In Texas, we get to decide the length of time he would spend in prison if he was convicted.
The lawyers questioned us. They asked if anyone was molested or had someone close to them that was molested and asked them if this would impact their ability to be impartial. This removed over three quarters of the women.
One of the questions the prosecutor asked was "If there was no evidence of a crime except the testimony of the victim who was a minor at the time of the offense, would this stop you from convicting the guy of molestation?"
Oddly, only one person contested it until they asked me individually. I said "I would never convict a guy of molestation of a minor if the only evidence was the testimony of the victim especially if it was a minor."
Apparently that was not the answer they were looking for. But then every guy after me kept agreeing with my exact statement. After about five guys, the judge called a stop to the question and called the lawyers together. They came back after the discussion and went with a different line of questioning. The judge tried to correct my statement and told me that in Texas oral testimony is evidence and I should be willing to consider all evidence before making a statement like that. I told her "With all due respect your honor, I will not convict a guy based on the testimony of one person especially if that is a minor. I respect the law of Texas but you better have more than that."
At the end, I was not selected and neither were any of the guys who agreed with my statement. (I am allowed to talk about the issue now because I was released from jury duty).
Would you convict a guy of molestation if the only evidence was the testimony of the victim?
Comments (68)
"The lawyers questioned us. They asked if anyone was molested or had
someone close to them that was molested and asked them if this would
impact their ability to be impartial. This removed over three quarters
of the women."
Wow.
To answer your question yes I would.
depends what else they had to say
I probably could, but I'd be bothered by it for similar reasons you were.
In the hypothetical, I'd have to consider the totality of the circumstance: why wasn't there any physical evidence, the possible motivations for the child to lie, as well as the possible criminal history of the defendent.
As scared as I would be of potentially letting a child molester go free, it is "innocent until proven guilty".
Maybe, probably, maybe. But look at you, causing problems in the courthouse.... I am not surprised :)
Of course not...i can't even imagine such a scenario..
Then you probably wouldn't have convicted my dad
.
I get what you're saying, Dan. I wouldn't have been able to do that. I probably would have, yes.
But... yeah. I don't know...
really depends on the details of the testimony and how convincing the victim was, but i think i would. especially when the defendant has a criminal history.
I agree with you on this one Dan. Unless her testimony was especially convincing and there didn't seem to be the possibility that she was making up the accusation.
One lie could ruin the man's life. Well, if the accusation alone hasn't already.
Yes. As someone who was molested, and didn't come forward about it til loooong after. Most of the time, there is no other evidence. And most of the time, rapists go free even when there is.
Ps. Summoned* to court. Not summons.
I have no idea. That is all I can say on the matter.
Nope. I completely agree with what you said.
I also agree, more evidence would be needed for me to make such a serious conviction. It wouldn't be easy for me, but I don't think I could convict someone based on verbal evidence alone.
If that was the only evidence, then no I would not. I say this because first, people of any age can make things up maliciously. Second, the power of suggestion can play a large part in the questioning of children.
Yes I would. Unlike you, I'd be more likely to believe such testimony from a minor, as I would assume that a minor would not be able to discuss such an explicit sexual act unless she experienced it. As with any testimony of course it would depend on the specifics. But in child molestations cases, that might be all the evidence, and why let the guy get away with molesting a child just because he was able to not leave other evidence behind?
@MagisterTom - And failure to convict the person who molested hers could ruin hers. That is if the actual molestation didn't already do so and it probably did.
@EmilyandAtticus - I'm not saying I don't have any sympathy for the kid. I have seen the effects it has on a person. But, if there is no evidence you can't convict, and it is easy to coach a kid into lying about something.
Hopefully the prosecution in the case referred to has more evidence than that. And, hopefully justice will be done. But, I can't see throwing an innocent man in prison for what could be a single false accusation.
Unfortunately, human justice fails. Thankfully, God's justice doesn't, and if the man did it, whether he gets away with it here or not, he will face God for it.
@MagisterTom - There is evidence. The testimony of a child about an explicit sexual act she shouldn't know about, and yet she does. Why? Because she experienced it. Your sympathy for the kid means nothing if you assume she is a liar and let the man who did this to her go free. You have assumed he is innocent because you have assumed the victim lied. That kind of "sympathy" she can do without. Of course there has to be enough evidence to convict and it depends on what she says, but assuming on its face that she's lying, that's helping a child molester.
As for him facing "God," yeah well I'm an atheist, and I'm pretty sure that will be cold comfort for that little girl.
@EmilyandAtticus - I haven't assumed anything. I won't trust the testimony of a girl under the age of 14 to the point of ruining a man's life over if there is no other evidence. Her knowledge of a sexual act says nothing when she could easily be coached into saying something. That, and if she is 14, there is a good chance she has seen internet pornography and who knows what she saw.
I'm just saying I wouldn't ruin a man's life over one testimony of a little girl who could be lying. If they can find the object he is accused of penetrating her with, or damage to her body from it, that changes things.
I would but I am also biased. Sometimes testimony is the only evidence available in those kinds of cases...
@MagisterTom - Then you have assumed she is lying, without even hearing what she has to say. So if he is smart enough to molest her without leaving damage, you are obviously ok with it. Wow. You worry about ruining his life, but don't give a shit about ruining hers. Unimpressed. Luckily nobody would be stupid enough to put you on a jury.
Nope and this is coming from somebody who had an older cousin who just couldn't keep his hands to himself. Before convicting somebody of a crime you need evidence. You can't just make an exception. The law is the law.
Uh...aren't you not supposed to talk about the court case outside of court at all (even if you're released) lol.
That Texas law doesn't make sense. I agree with you. That's like me testifying that I saw god :P
- because molesters know how to get these kids in private, or isolate them from others... and put them in a position to not be believed nor feel valid as a human being to ever stand up against them. For some, getting their perpetrator before the court will be the only form of "healing" that they can experience. Don't forget that there will be details shared by the victim that would make the evidence credible too: mentions of scars, moles, descriptions of the location where it happened, etc... There will possibly be testimonies of a counselor or other adults on behalf of the child too - that will be able to explain if what they have conveyed in therapy or witnessed from the child validates the claim too. Don't deny a child the ability to put their perpetrator behind bars if they were willing to have the courage to come forward and share embarassing details (and possibly have to see their abuser again in court); don't give the abuser the opportunity to do this horrendous deed to someone else too if they did in fact do it.