Need some quick legal info

[Orrex]

The nigh-ubiquitous "me too" posts on FB have generated a lot of commentary, as was the intent.

I'm in a "discussion" right now in which my esteemed counterpart is insisting that a victim who doesn't report her abuse is legally aiding and abetting the abuser if he commits further abuses in the future.

My first reaction was to blast him in the neck with a shovel for being a fuckhead, but I'd like to counter with something more sophisticated.

Does his claim have any merit? Is there case law to support it?

I tried Googling, but I'd rather draw upon the knowledge of someone (or several someones) around here.


Thanks!

[snooper2]

1. www.legalzoom.com

I think that was the commercial

[Sanity Claws]

2. Aiding and abetting refers to commission of crimes through encouragement, financial support, etc.

The victims of prior crimes are not doing anything like this. Whoever said this places far more responsibility on the victim than the criminal.

[lagomorph777]

9. Yeah, I think the shovel remedy is called for here.

[Lars39]

3. I would think the victim's safety and well-being comes first, no matter what law.

Or I'd like to think so.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

4. Get him to cite the law.

That'll keep him busy.

[Iggo]

5. There you go.

[B2G]

6. This.

What a jackhole.

[Orrex]

10. Yes--I'll go with that

His initial post make the claim that a victim bears who doesn't report abuse will bear responsibility for future abuses.

My response was "No, that's 100% false. The abuser bears full and exclusive responsibility for his actions."

Amazingly, he's a typical MRA type, and he insists that I'm only arguing the point "to impress a girl."

The discussion is on the FB page of a good friend of mine--and she has about 2,000 FB friends. I happened to be the first one to call him out, but people (mostly women) are now descending upon him to take him apart with brilliant surgical precision.

I'll ask him to cite the law in question, but then I will happily sit back and watch as they handily destroy him.

[mercuryblues]

7. If you follow their logic

then when a woman does report the crime and the police label it as a false report and put it in the do not investigate pile, the rape test kit sits on a shelf for a decade. When it is finally tested and it reveals that the same person is responsible for 30 or more rapes since her report, Does that make the police co-conspirators?

[mountain grammy]

8. Yes, good answer.

[Lee-Lee]

11. Legally a victim who doesn't report bears no culpability in the attackers future acts

Morally? That's a more complicated issue.

An arguement can be made either way.

If the person had knowledge but wasn't a victim would you blame them if more people were victimized?

How much does a person being a victim change tag dynamic?

It's a tough issue.

[Orrex]

13. Morally, I feel that the victim should take care of him or herself first

If part of that self-care involves reporting the abuse, then by all means they should feel empowered to do so.

If part of that self-care involves not reporting the abuse (even/especially if reporting it will subject them to further abuse), then they should feel empowered to make that choice as well.

Being the victim doesn't automatically impart any moral responsibility to do anything. If the survivor chooses to take on that moral responsibility, then they should feel empowered to do so.

[Lee-Lee]

14. Generally agreed, but is hard to figure where the line is

How many times have we seen a case where somebody commits a horrible crime and when their background is dug into we see all kinds of things they did that nobody reported. And people, many on here, say "why didn't anybody do anything, they are partially to blame for this because nobody intervened to stop him when they could".

Look back and you will see it a lot.

So where is the line?

Is it the same for property crimes as assault? Is it the same for assault as sexual assault? Is it the same regardless of gender?

What if a person who is drunk hits your car and you let them just pay the damage instead of calling the police so they avoid a DUI- are you to blame if they kill someone next week driving drunk because you let them avoid arrest, having their car impounded and license revoked?

As I said, it's a complicated moral question. Ask 100 different people and you will get 100 different answers.

[Orrex]

15. Yeah, and the more I think about it, the more complicated it gets

Or if an abuser explicitly reveals plans to commit further abuse or some other crime, should the victim report it, if that reporting means going public with their own abuse?


Hell, I don't have a clear answer.

[Lee-Lee]

22. Yup

I can fully understand a victim of sexual assault not reporting it because it's hard to do and can mean reliving the trauma.

At the same time, I see with clarity and have seen the real world results when people don't report criminal acts and the attacker or perpetrator goes on to offend again.

[Madam45for2923]

12. Must victims report crimes? Interesting question. Esteemed person is being an a-hole though.

Acting like they KNOW the answer to the question. Not caring about trauma suffered by victims.

[WillowTree]

16. Not "aiding and abetting", but certainly enabling.

Legal implications, probably not. But morally beholden to future prey of the offender, as a survivor myself, I say "yes".

[Demsrule86]

19. Easy to say, but those who try to get their attackers face hell on earth even today.

My own family member refused to even consider it...she had seen another girl raked over the coals in the local paper six months before her attack...don't judge unless you have walked in their shoes.

[WillowTree]

25. Ah, but I have. Or did you miss that part?

All not reporting it does is enabling the offender to continue with no consequences. And while I certainly don't condone a reporter being "raked over the coals", as one who might have avoided being beaten to a bloody pulp had the prior victim reported it, I sure would have appreciated it if she had.

So how about you not judging until you've marched a few paces in my pumps?

[Demsrule86]

29. I can understand that...but if the circumstances are such that you can't get a conviction...

drinking, partying whatever...of course you should be able to try them no matter what, but the reality is the reality...a victim can be forced to pay court costs and sued even. It is not cut and dried. It broke my heart that the guy got off and he offended again...this time it was an older girl whom he grabbed off the street...sad that stranger rape is still one of the only rapes that get prosecuted...and there are thousands of rape kits all over this country that are never even processed.

[bluepen]

17. Its the Guilty Bystander Law.

[Orrex]

20. Not sure that applies here

I don't believe that the victim of a crime is considered a "bystander" and as such wouldn't be under that obligation.

Also, since members of our highly trained, heavily armed and armored police force aren't obligated to intervene in a crime in progress, there's absolutely no constitutionally sound way that a private citizen can be legally required to step in, victim or otherwise.

[bluepen]

24. Lol. Didnt read closely or never watched Seinfeld?

[Orrex]

27. Not sure that Seinfeld is considered definitive legal doctrine

And if ever I were charged under such a law, I would go to the SCOTUS with it.

How can a private citizen be held to a higher standard of responsibility than our esteemed law enforcement professionals?

[bluepen]

30. Oh wow. Carry on.

Disclaimer: the phrase “carry on” does not mean that I am encouraging you to literally carry anything. Hope this helps.

[Orrex]

32. You're not making what is generally considered to be "sense"

Are you saying that I'm legally obligated to intervene? How so, when cops are not?

Are you saying that I'm not legally obligated to intervene, just as cops are not? No problem--that's what I've been saying.

[bluepen]

34. Okay.

Seinfeld was an American comedy show that aired throughout much of the 1990s.

In one episode, the concept was a “guilty bystander.” As opposed to the “innocent bystander.”

Guilty bystander.

Guilty. Not innocent.

So the joke was a common comedy gimmick known as a play on words and....

Never mind. Please return to your regularly scheduled super-serious, hyper-earnest posting.

Thank you.

[Orrex]

35. But your "joke" isn't funny or relevant here

And the fact that you presented it as though it was both is, in a word, puzzling. If were either, you might have been onto something. As is stands...

No shit Seinfeld used that gag. In the finale, as memory serves. John Pinette was the victim whom the four principals refused to help. There--see? I know what you're talking about.

Your dusty, 20 year old reference notwithstanding, especially since it was a largely unfunny episode and a disappointing finale, the point remains that the fuckhead in the FB discussion at hand put forth a bullshit premise with the intention of fooling people into thinking that he isn't full of shit.

I'm sorry that you find discussions of systemic sexual harassment to be objectionably "super-serious" and "hyper-earnest." Perhaps you'd care to unleash a few more of your funny jokes about the subject? We'd love to hear them!

[bluepen]

36. Sure you knew.

That’s why you said you didn’t think the guilty bystander law, which doesn’t exist, doesn’t apply here. Ha.

Just a few more days till the weekend. I hope it’s a good one for you. It sounds like you need to lighten up. A LOT.

Goodnight! 💤

[Orrex]

37. I don't give a fuck whether you believe me or not

You decided to shoehorn your unfunny joke into a thread about systematic sexual harassment, and you think I need to lighten up?

I have several suggestions as to where you can put your advice; PM me for details.

Stick around by all means, because I'm sure that you'll have something useful to contribute after you've been here a while. But not yet.

[bluepen]

38. Oh well.

This could have been a lot less tedious had you thought about the words in my original response. Now it’s turned into an “I meant to do that” squabble. Boring. Send further responses to the ignore bin.

Here’s hoping for a glorious victory in your Facebook debate.

[Orrex]

39. If you could just admit that you fucked up, we'd all be better off

No, you had to shoehorn your unfunny "joke" into the discussion, and then it's my fault when I don't fall down laughing.

I'm pleased that you're able to dismiss systematic sexual harassment as if it were a meaningless internet debate, and I hope that it always remains so for you and the people you know.

[CK_John]

18. Is it a civil court or a criminal court, you need a lawyer.

[Orrex]

21. It's purely hypothetical in this case

And MRA is telling women how they should behave in the aftermath of abuse, and he's throwing up bullshit smokescreens in the process.

[Corgigal]

23. Here ya go

[link:https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/homicides/in-strohmeyer-case-bad-samaritan-david-cash-led-to-new-law/|

[elleng]

26. Please drop the 'fuckhead' part; it only heightens the anger.

The claim does have some merit, and so does the claim that reporting abuse is often almost as traumatizing as the original 'sin.'

Try to be understanding, and have a calm discussion.

[Orrex]

28. I haven't called him fuckhead in-thread, though he surely is

Anyway, the page owner booted him because he was clearly looking for a fight and attacked every victim he could find.

And, for the record, I am not greatly interested in "being understanding" of the abusers nor of the abusers' advocates.

[jberryhill]

31. This is what you are looking for

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misprision_of_felony

Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

---

Even under the most literal interpretation of the statute, an act of concealment is required - i.e. you have to help someone cover up a crime.

[Orrex]

33. Thank you. I was hoping that you'd respond.

Much of the rest (my own posts included) is fluffery and speculation. Thanks for the clear citation.

[Baitball Blogger]

40. Don't know the answer.

Just wanted to add, that a victim needs to decide for themselves if they are further victimizing themselves by coming out - because the system has historically been brutal. Hard as it is to believe, but not all counselors will advise you to write your stories and put it out there, just because you are going to subject yourself to further humiliation from people who are never going to get it. A person should be able to decide for themselves if this is something they can handle without further damage.

With this Me Too movement, I hope that will change, and it will become easier.

[Orrex]

41. A survey of real-life friends suggests that close to 100% of women are "me too."

Not all of them have opted to go public on Facebook, and of course they are under no obligation to do so, but it's a sign of how pervasive and insidious the culture has become that victims are blamed both for their own abuse and for future abuse inflicted upon others.

With this Me Too movement, I hope that will change, and it will become easier.

I would love to see that come to pass.