"Did Judge Kevin Fine cross the line questioning a rape victim? Your answer may say a lot about you"

An interesting discussion on the "concept of "cultural cognition," which is a high-falutin' way of describing the "influence of group values on individuals’ perceptions of facts."

EDIT: http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2009/08/did-judge-ken-fine-cross-line.html

more information, it would be hard to comment.

I find no reason for anyone to be less than diplomatic. I will read the link and offer a comment as time permits. :hi:

:shrug: Don't know what the case was about..

Since he sentenced the man to 25 years.

The victim was a teenager. She did not know the rapist beforehand. The defense obviously did not find a motive for her making a false accusation. All of this was brought out in court. The judge had the transcript to read. He had sat there, watching the victim during the trial. Surely he could have judged on her veracity from all this without having to make her go through such a terrible interrogation again.

I knew a man who had been falsely accused of rape, and had served time for it before the woman recanted. He was young, not too bright, and also a little lax in his conduct (not coming to work on time, taking time off from a job without permission--he was doing pest control work). The woman in this case was older, and had known him for a while, and used the accusation to "get back" at a mutual friend through him.

I also know a women who have been sexually abused and raped. They never get over it. It is especially hard on those whose rapists got off scot free, or feared to report it because it would ruin their reputation. To have to talk about the trauma again opens up wounds that take a long time to scar over--for they never heal.

What this judge did was horrible.

and let counsel for both sides “flesh it out.”

Judge Fine's statement says a lot about him. Yep...he definitely crossed a line he shouldn't have, and he knows it. The defendant had already been convicted, so if he had doubts about the victim's story, as he realized later, he should have asked the prosecutor. His job was to sentence the defendant, not badger the victim.

It would have been one thing if, from the outset, there was no jury and the judge was trying the case. But a jury convicted the man, which, if the article is to be believed, was a miracle in itself. The ONLY thing the judge should have looked at was the character of the defendant, including signs of remorse, etc, in figuring out sentencing.

he wants to make sure that it was in fact non-consensual and there was no way the perp could have thought it was. That is the point of a rape trial.

He probably could have gone about it in a much better manner though.

By definition it is non-consensual.

if it was consensual then it wasn't rape, and no crime occurred.

If the guy could have reasonably thought it was, when in fact it is not, a lesser crime has occurred.

These are important details that all come back to consent, was it given. How I read it that is what he was trying to figure out. For instance, in a murder trial I would expect them to verify that the victim is in fact, deceased. This is a very basic question that determines if in fact a crime was committed.

And it sounds like he was convinced one did occur, as the guy got 20 years.

The verdict was already in....it was rape.

He was putting the girl on trial in a way though the verdict was already in.

as that would be a relevant detail, if there was any possibility he (the perpetrator) thought it was consensual. It would still be rape, the verdict would stand, but the sentencing may be reduced if he were merely mistaken, rather than malicious.

For instance, they find you've killed someone. The verdict is murder. But the difference between the death penalty and life in prison may hinge on the degree of malice you express, regret, intentions, and so on.

While probably very distasteful and I am certain difficult for the victim (and perhaps the Judge wasn't very discreet in his questions), I believe it is part of the process that must be carried out. A trial and sentencing are based upon the discovery of fact and while the jury had rendered a verdict, the judge in this case is the one to impose sentence, in order to perform that function, he needs to be fully informed (we are after all talking about taking away someone's freedom). I know of no other way to get answers than to ask questions. I understand that this is a very sensitive issue and my feelings go out to the victim, yet I can't think of another way to get information other than ask. Perhaps I am not smart enough to understand.

and defense...in private. he was absolutely out-of-line in his questioning of the victim, after the guilty verdict had been issued. at least he finally shit his mouth and sentenced the rapist. sheesh.

not adjudicating the facts of the case. that has already happened with the prosecution and the defense. what he did was way out of line, and he admitted it.

I actually dont know how civilian courts work in this area.

Our judges can ask questions at any phase of the trial, jury or no.

Of course, if the judge is allowed to ask questions during the guilt or innocence phase then that is when he should have asked those types of questions.

If however he isn't, then I can understand why he would be in a difficult position sentencing someone if he felt that they may be innocent (in spite of the jury's ruling).
Still, as someone else noted, he gave the guy a decently large sentence so it appears at the end of the day, he accepted her version of events. Perhaps if he had been left with doubts and not questioned her, he would have given a much lighter sentence.

I dont know the tone or manner of the questions to know if it was out of bounds or excessive or just questions designed to assist in coming up with a sentence.