No charges for pastor who raped mentally disabled woman, thanks to Louisiana law.

[AtheistCrusader]

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/05/18/pastor-david-scott-lemley-louisiana-rape-law-video/

A Louisiana pastor will not face charges of rape, after allegedly having sex with an ‘intellectually limited woman’ on multiple occasions, at the request of her father.

According to The Advocate, the 20-year-old victim has the mental capacity of a seven-year-old child. The girl’s father was arrested in November 2013 on multiple sex charges, including aggravated rape. Although he confessed to police that he had sex with his own intellectually impaired child, he was not convicted on any charges related to that. Instead he plead guilty to a lesser charge of ‘cruelty to a juvenile.’ The victim’s father served a minimal jail sentence and is currently out on probation.

Pastor David ‘Scott’ Lemley was arrested in March of 2014, following an investigation into allegations that the girl’s father also told her to have sex with him, because his wife is ‘ill’ and ‘bedridden’.

Well, I'm sure glad religion was Johnny on the spot to provide a moral compass that might prevent this sort of behavior.

How do religious believers of any stripe propose we falsify his claim that the dropped charges are evidence that he has ‘been vindicated‘ by God? Some sort of way we can determine if his claim is vile bullshit? Obviously the prosecutors office made a different claim, but the prosecutor or the legislature might simply be an instrument of the will of god, right? He likes fucking with people every now and then right? Just ask Abraham and Isaac, or Job.

[rug]

1. You do understand that it was the woman's father who confessed to rape, not the pastor?

According to The Advocate, the 20-year-old victim has the mental capacity of a seven-year-old child. The girl’s father was arrested in November 2013 on multiple sex charges, including aggravated rape. Although he confessed to police that he had sex with his own intellectually impaired child, he was not convicted on any charges related to that. Instead he plead guilty to a lesser charge of ‘cruelty to a juvenile.’ The victim’s father served a minimal jail sentence and is currently out on probation.

Pastor David ‘Scott’ Lemley was arrested in March of 2014, following an investigation into allegations that the girl’s father also told her to have sex with him, because his wife is ‘ill’ and ‘bedridden’.

You do understand that the pastor was implicated by the same father? You do understand the pastor denied the accusation?

And you do understand the article is about the statute?

In the state of Louisiana, a disabled victim must have a disability that prevents the person from being able to resist, in order for prosecutors to bring charges of aggravated rape. Although the victim has the mental age of a seven-year-old, state law says that if she did not resist her rapist, or was not so severely impaired that she could not resist her rapist, then no crime was committed.

According to a representative of the District Attorney’s office, who spoke to The Advocate on May 16:

“The provision of Louisiana’s aggravated rape statute under which Lemley was arrested states that the crime occurs when the victim is prevented from resisting the act “because the victim suffers from a physical or mental infirmity preventing such resistance.”

That means it’s perfectly legal in Louisiana to use a disabled person with the mental capacity of a small child, in order to gratify yourself sexually, as long as the victim doesn’t physically resist.

You picked a pretty spongy terrain to use to crusade against religion.

[AtheistCrusader]

2. Yes I do understand the pastor denies the accusation.

This is me not believing him either.

[rug]

3. Your disbelief is irrelevant to both the facts of the article and the evidence in the case.

[Yorktown]

6. The case was not dropped for lack of evidence, but because of a legal loophole.

On May 14, prosecutors announced that aggravated rape charges against Lemley were dropped, following a legal analysis that determined that the crime did not meet the standard laid out in the Louisiana criminal statute.

In the state of Louisiana, a disabled victim must have a disability that prevents the person from being able to resist, in order for prosecutors to bring charges of aggravated rape. Although the victim has the mental age of a seven-year-old, state law says that if she did not resist her rapist, or was not so severely impaired that she could not resist her rapist, then no crime was committed.

According to a representative of the District Attorney’s office, who spoke to The Advocate on May 16:

“The provision of Louisiana’s aggravated rape statute under which Lemley was arrested states that the crime occurs when the victim is prevented from resisting the act “because the victim suffers from a physical or mental infirmity preventing such resistance.”

..
Since his arrest, Lemley has spent most of his time slandering his victim in the media and telling his devoted church base that the young woman is a liar, who is ‘known for making up stories’. Now that the charges have been dropped because of a glaring legal loophole, Lemley is claiming that he has ‘been vindicated‘ by God.

That’s hardly the case. In spite of Lemley’s claims, Assistant District Attorney Sue Bernie told the Advocate that the DA’s office did not drop charges because prosecutors believe the girl ‘makes up stories.’

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/05/18/pastor-david-scott-lemley-louisiana-rape-law-video/

[rug]

9. There was no evidence for an element of the crime in the current statute.

"Loophole" may be in term in crochet but is completely meaningless in law.

What ADA Bernie "believes" is as irrelevant as anyone else's belief, despite your bold face. In criminal law, what is dispositive is, what's that term?, demonstrable and provable evidence.

But, I'm glad your post underscores that the present statute is the real issue, not speculative anti-religious horse shit.

[Yorktown]

11. Sure, we can all dance around words

Please, this is not a court or a philosophy club, can we use words in their plain English sense?
Loophole was neatly conveying what could easily be reworded in legalese.

The wording of the accusation could not lead to a trial in Louisiana,
while the same wording could have led in a trial in another state.

And I doubt an ADA would word her sentence this way if she didn't feel there was at least reason to hold a trial of some nature baesd on the facts at hand.

[Leontius]

12. So without any actual evidence you believe.

What is it you call belief without evidence?

[AtheistCrusader]

13. Confession/testimony of the father is evidence.

Compelling, particularly since he confessed to his own crime.

[Leontius]

14. Allegations not equal to confession or testimony

So you believe based on no evidence.

[AtheistCrusader]

15. You realize testimony IS evidence right?

[Warren Stupidity]

17. Not when religion is involved.

[xfundy]

5. I can't believe you're supporting this abuse.

Shocking.

[rug]

10. I can't believe you are so obtuse as to construe my post as supporting abuse.

Oh, wait, yes I can. I've read too many of your posts to be surprised at your dishonest, faux shock.

[Turbineguy]

7. The law sounds like a great way

for republicans to breed voters.

[Kalidurga]

4. I am too angry to speak so...

[struggle4progress]

8. "Because prosecutors did not believe they could prove the crime of aggravated rape

beyond a reasonable doubt, <East Baton Rouge Parish Assistant District Attorney Sue> Bernie said the only fair thing to do was to not charge <David “Scott”> Lemley ... who has maintained his innocence"
Pastor accused of having sex with intellectually limited woman won't be charged, attorneys said
DA’s Office cites prosecution issues
JOE GYAN JR
May 16, 2015

[Warren Stupidity]

18. After all, he has maintained his innocence.

Seems reasonable to me. From now on, just drop charges on anyone who maintains their innocence.

[struggle4progress]

21. There are various reasons a prosecutor may not take a case to trial when

current evidence seems not to support the elements of the charge, including (for example):

(1) The prosecutor might have a commitment to fundamental fairness towards citizens;

(2) The prosecutor might want to use limited government resources wisely;

(3) The prosecutor might not want to unnecessarily irritate the judge;

(4) The prosecutor might want to avoid needless negative media criticism; or

(5) The prosecutor might not want double jeopardy to attach, if future evidence might support this charge or a closely related charge.

[Warren Stupidity]

22. Keep on supporting massive malfeasance because god.

[struggle4progress]

26. You seem to be hallucinating words I didn't write

[cbayer]

16. What a sick person the father is and what a faulty set of laws.

Not sure if the pastor is guilty or not, but he surely should have been tried.

[Warren Stupidity]

19. Pay attention. The official talking points for the Defenders of the Faith here are that

there was no crime so everything is ok and nobody who can be identified as a religious authority did anything that was technically wrong.

[okasha]

20. Wrong, as usual.

The problem is that the law is badly written. It may shock you to hear this, but a prosecutor has to operate witbin, and satisfy the requirements of, the law. If the prosecutor does not have a piece of evidence required by the law s/he isn't going to press a losing case.

And best s/he doesn't because a not guilty verdict would preclude later prosecution should new evidence emerge.

[struggle4progress]

23. I think this is the statute (RS 14:42)

A. Aggravated rape is a rape ... where ... intercourse is deemed to be without lawful consent of the victim because ... (6) ... the victim is prevented from resisting the act because the victim suffers from a ... mental infirmity preventing such resistance ... C. For purposes of this Section ... (2) "Mental infirmity" means a person with an intelligence quotient of seventy or lower ...
https://legis.la.gov/legis/Law.aspx?d=78529

Such law doesn't seem terribly flawed to me: it recognizes that a person, suffering from a mental infirmity, may be victimized by sexual assault without appearing to resist the assault; and it correspondingly establishes an serious offense, rather analogous to statutory rape, for intercourse with a person suffering from a sufficiently serious intelklectual impairment, with a stiff mandatory sentence: (D)(1) Whoever commits the crime of aggravated rape shall be punished by life imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence

One obviously cannot criminalize any and all sexual intercourse with any person of below-average intelligence, since that would affect half the population. The determination by the DA that "legal analysis" precludes prosecution in this case probably means that there is no definitive evidence for intercourse without consent (so an ordinary rape prosecution is unwarranted) and that the alleged victim's actual IQ exceeds 70 (so an aggravated rape prosecution is unwarranted): such an analysis can be conducted without any further effort to determine the facts in the case, and the DA therefore may not actually have any defensible opinion about whether there was actual sexual contact between the pastor and the young woman

The facts in public view are rather sparse, in any case. The pastor says the father and daughter were having difficulties and had been allowed to stay with him and his wife. The father, who was himself arrested on aggravated rape charges and subsequently convicted and imprisoned briefly on a cruelty charge, says he told his daughter to have sex with the pastor. The prosecutor couldn't get specific statements from the daughter, though she seems to tell a story rather like that of her father. The pastor, meanwhile, apparently agreed to a polygraph test in December 2013 but didn't show -- and someone accused him of car theft

I can't see much basis for having an opinion here

[cbayer]

24. Agree that there is not much basis for drawing much of a conclusion here when it

comes to the pastor, but the father sounds like a monster.

In terms of the IQ, this is really murky. Reports state she functions at the level of a 7 year old. This would put her IQ substantially below 70. It is generally accepted that an 8 year old level would be equivalent to an IQ of 50. So something seems really wrong there.

[struggle4progress]

25. I can't really track down the intellectual-age determination:

as early as 2 March 2014, I can find news stories containing ... a 20-year-old woman with "the mental capacity of a 7-year-old" ... or ... described as having the mental capacity of a 7 year old ... and so on. On 5 March 2014, there's a news article saying Arrest records show the woman has medical documentation that shows she has the mental capacity of a seven year old

This is all pretty vague (perhaps in part to help safeguard the woman's identity)

If the prosecutor's "legal analysis" precludes an aggravated rape prosecution, then either there's just inadequate proof of any intercourse or else the woman's IQ isn't provably 70 or below. Given that the pastor was charged with car theft (outcome unknown to me) and didn't show for a polygraph, police and prosecutor probably haven't been kindly inclined to him -- so if they had usable evidence of intercourse, I expect they'd bend over backwards for proof her IQ was 70 or below

[cbayer]

27. Right, it could be either of the options you describe.

If they had something, it sure seems like they would go after him. He may well be guilty, but I don't think anyone has the evidence they need to prove it.

[libdem4life]

28. Got to add in Lot ... he knows what to do when there are two daughters and no "wife" handy. n/t