Should reluctant rape and abuse victims be forced to testify?

This post is inspired by the case of Greg Hardy, a Carolina Panthers NFL player whose prosecution for domestic abuse fell apart when his victim didn't show up for the trial. 

Domestic violence charges against Carolina Panthers defensive end Greg Hardy have been dismissed, with his accuser not making herself available to help with the case, prosecutors announced Monday.

Hardy's appeal of his 2014 conviction was scheduled to begin Monday morning at the Mecklenburg County Courthouse, but his accuser, ex-girlfriend Nicole Holder, did not show up for the hearing.

In a statement explaining the decision to dismiss charges, the district attorney's office said it has "reliable information" that Holder and Hardy have reached a civil settlement and that she has "intentionally made herself unavailable to the State." (source)

The question I'm asking is, in a case like this, would it be re-victimization of the abuse victim to apply legal pressure for her to testify? And if it is re-victimization, would it be in the wider best interest of the community and larger world to force her to testify as a means of getting the offender off the street, into treatment (if he needs it), and prevent future offenses, especially considering that this sort of behavior tends to escalate?

In this case, by settling with the victim, he has essentially bought his way out of a criminal prosecution and perverted the course of justice.

Views: 547

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

I agree...but the victim cannot and should not be held "responsible" for future crimes their perpetrator commits.

Well, but they WOULD be. We just don't mention that, I guess.

No Unseen, the perpetrator is responsible for their crimes. Not the victim.

With any other crime, if I fail to do what I can to stop the crime, I have at least a share of the responsibility.

Oh great googly moogly I cannot fathom the depravity of Unseen's thought here. "The victim responsible for subsequent crimes of the attacker" !

great so if the attacker gets off because the prosecutionis hopeless at their job we can throw them in prison?

If the judges sentances so lightly that the criminal commits another crime lets throw them in prison ?

If one of your misogynistic ring wing-nut christian politicans opens his gob and says something that predjudices the trial and it collapses can we nail them to a cross when the attacker attacks and kills his next victim ?

I know in the US you seem to want to make criminals of everyone for anything and further increase the size of your gulags which are already World record breaking sizes but this one is horrid, I doubt even ISIS would swallow it !


"one of your misogynistic ring wing-nut christian politicians"

Hold the phone there honey*, they ain't my politicians.

*The use of the word "misogynistic" is such a general way deserves  an objectifying "honey" for balance.


With any other crime, if I fail to do what I can to stop the crime, I have at least a share of the responsibility.

Even in cases where predictions of future crime are based only on assumptions or personal opinion? I'm unaware of any such law.

I was talking about ethical responsibility, not legal responsibility.

I was talking about ethical responsibility, not legal responsibility.

Ah, good. I was thinking you were speaking in the same context as "forcing" the victim to testify, which would have to have a legal force behind it.

That's an issue of justice in general...not just about rape.

Oh right, well let's blame the mother for conceiving him then.


"blame the mother for conceiving him"

Might as well...I already blamed Hitler's Mom.


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service