You be the jury

[markomalley]

This is a highly unusual rape case. Please read the story fully...

---

A Charlottesville judge set bond at $30,000 Tuesday for a Nevada man charged with raping a fellow University of Virginia student nearly 22 years ago.

William N. Beebe appeared in Charlottesville Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court for a bond hearing after flying from Las Vegas to turn himself in to Virginia authorities to face the rape charge.

Beebe was taken to the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail until he can post bond and turn over his passport to police.

"Mr. Beebe has been fully cooperative with authorities," his lawyer, Rhonda Quagliana, told Judge Edward DeJ. Berry.

Prosecutors fought to have Beebe locked up, pointing out that he faces life in prison if convicted.

In September, Beebe wrote a letter of apology to the woman he said he "harmed" as a student at UVa in 1984. That woman, Liz Seccuro, responded to his letter with an e-mail, sparking a correspondence that lasted for weeks.

During that correspondence, Beebe appeared to acknowledge that he raped Seccuro, but Quagliana has since said that no rape occurred.

Seccuro, a 39-year-old event coordinator living in Connecticut, has gone public with her account, saying Beebe, a stranger, grabbed her and raped her inside his room at the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity house.

Beebe will be living with a friend in Richmond while he awaits trial. A preliminary hearing date has been scheduled for March 24.

---

Link for this story: http://www.dailyprogress.com/servlet/Satel...&path=!news

Other related stories: http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/local...local-headlines

http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satel...s=1045855934842

What I find unique about this story is the following:

• (In another story it stated) There was no rape kid done on the woman at the time. She did not pursue a criminal case when the incident happened.
  
• There is no indication anywhere that this incident, which happened in 1984, was repeated at any time since that one occasion.
  
• The defendant came forward, unsolicited, and apologized to the victim. The victim did not contact him; he was not under any sort of investigation whatsoever. In fact, it was his apology letter, forwarded by the victim to the Charlottesville VA police, that led to his arrest.
  
• If his lawyer is to believed (ahem), the defendant has fully cooperated with authorities.
  

So what do you do under the circumstances? On one hand, it is a rape. Rape is clearly wrong and needs to be punished. On the other hand, the incident happened 20 years ago and the only reason it is being pursued is that the defendant felt sufficient remorse to formally apologize and ask forgiveness of the person he hurt (to my feeble mind, that sounds like just about as close to genuine remorse as one could find. Is mercy, under the circumstances, applicable?

[WhiteDove]

None of the above. Wouldn't you need to have a trial before you would pass a sentence? I think it works that way.

[markomalley]

None of the above. Wouldn't you need to have a trial before you would pass a sentence? I think it works that way.

Note the verbiage in the poll question: if he pleads guilty.

[oldiesman]

I guess I'd go with normal jail time.

On the one hand, he did commit the rape and therefore should be punished for it.

On the other, he admitted it and apologized, and if he has no other crimes on his record, should get a reasonable sentence under those circumstances.

[johniam]

This reminds me of a case in Grand rapids, MI where I lived at the time. In the late 80s a worker at a liquor store was shot and killed by a man who robbed the place. He was never caught, but 7 years later he turned himself in; said he couldn't live with himself anymore. As far as I recall, murder is murder and there was no special sentencing given to him for this.

Rape is not murder, but I don't think there should be any special leniency in sentencing this man. He turned himself in of his free will, which indicates that this has plagued him to some degree ever since he did it. He threw himself on the mercy of the court; he should expect no "discount".

[WhiteDove]

Note the verbiage in the poll question: if he pleads guilty.

Verbiage was noted, but he has not pleaded guilty. In fact as the story (and until trial that is what it is) noted his attorney has said no rape has occurred based on that it's highly unlikely he will plead guilty. So based on that fact it would be wrong to speculate a sentence when a trial has not occurred and due process rendered to establish guilt .

[krys]

Is there no statute of limitations on rape? I thought there was.

I voted probation because "ignore it" wasn't an option.

I had to think about it a while, though, before I voted. Here is why I voted how I did:

There is no information about a police report having been made at the time. If there was no report it is possible that it wasn't as significant as it now appears. (I'm thinking both were drinking a lot and she may have thought so at that time)

I'm also thinking that there is no reason for Beebe to write to her and try to make amends unless he is seriously working a 12 step program - which, if he is....it's not to excuse him for his previous actions, but to acknowledge what he's doing now.

I do acknowledge that Liz Seccuro may have suffered serious harm and I'm sorry for that, but I don't see how any of the jail terms would address that now.

BUT we have very little information here, we'd need to see all the evidence that a trial would bring before a just verdict could come.

[oldiesman]

Is there no statute of limitations on rape? I thought there was.

There is no statute of limitations on felonies in Virginia.

Statute of Limitations By State

[Ron G.]

Not enough info.

Why was she in the fraternity house? Did she report it to anyone at the time? Was it a case of "date rape"?

[Abigail]

"Why was she in the fraternity house? Did she report it to anyone at the time? Was it a case of "date rape"?"

None of that ultimately matters. Rape is rape, whether you know the perp or not. In fact, in some ways I would think "date rape" would be worse in that you body and your trust in someone you know have both been violated.

That being said, short of the man pleading guilty, it seems to me they are going to have a hell of a time getting a conviction. If he does plead guilty? I don't know, I have mixed feelings on this one.

[Lifted Up]

"Why was she in the fraternity house? Did she report it to anyone at the time? Was it a case of "date rape"?"

None of that ultimately matters. Rape is rape, whether you know the perp or not.

I agree; and I like to say it also in a slightly different way: Being willingly or consensually near someone or even with someone does not in the least mean that any sex, if it happened, was consensual.

The problem IMO is that sex between "consenting adults" has become such an accepted practice in our secularized society, regardless of marital status or many other factors, that the rapist can (and I guess has) use that acceptance to fall back on when accused...like, "she came up with me; how was I supposed to know she didnt want to do it?".

[Sushi]

***Oops - posted by Abigail***

"the rapist can (and I guess has) use that acceptance to fall back on when accused...like, "she came up with me; how was I supposed to know she didnt want to do it?"."

It is simple - did she say "no"? One should only have to say that word one time.

Edited January 18, 2006 by Sushi

[markomalley]

***Oops - posted by Abigail***

"the rapist can (and I guess has) use that acceptance to fall back on when accused...like, "she came up with me; how was I supposed to know she didnt want to do it?"."

It is simple - did she say "no"? One should only have to say that word one time.

This shows the value of some of the old fashioned/ old world customs: in this case, not leaving a man and a woman alone unchaperoned.

While you are absolutely correct, Abigail, that 'no' means 'no,' had they not been allowed to be in that position (alone in a college fraternity bedroom), then the incident wouldn't have happened in the first place.

Any male who is intelligent enough to watch the TV news should know that he should respected an explicit 'no.' Frankly, since the late '70s, any male should respect the implicit 'no' had his prospective partner not given a definitive, unambiguous 'I wish to have sex with you now--This consent may or may not apply in a few minutes and so you must renew this consent arrangement periodically. Proceed at your own risk.'

Of course, the simplest and best solution is not to get in that situation in the first place, as I said earlier.

[Lifted Up]

***Oops - posted by Abigail***

"the rapist can (and I guess has) use that acceptance to fall back on when accused...like, "she came up with me; how was I supposed to know she didnt want to do it?"."

It is simple - did she say "no"? One should only have to say that word one time.

I agree...and "no" must be listened to. Of course, some on GS would contend that the "no" may not be given in some cases because of threats, implied or otherwise...that is, fear of reprisal.

[Abigail]

"This shows the value of some of the old fashioned/ old world customs: in this case, not leaving a man and a woman alone unchaperoned. "

While I agree there is some logic to this in certain situations, I think overall it would be much better if people simply respected each other enough that such customs were not needed. Call me an idealist, I know.

"Of course, some on GS would contend that the "no" may not be given in some cases because of threats, implied or otherwise...that is, fear of reprisal."

And I would agree that such circumstances do occur. But then you run into how do you hold a man accountable for not reading a woman's mind. Of course if the man or, for that matter woman, who is the aggressor is in a position of authority or power over the other person, there are still ethical considerations.

[moony3424]

Based on the wording of the question "(if he pleads guilty in court)", the judge would have no other option, but to sentence him under the guidelines that the law required at the time that the crime took place.

[Ron G.]

The incident occurred in 1984...that's 22 years ago. That's before Hillary, Gloria Allred and political correctness.

The thing says she's 39....that means she was 17 or 18 at the time and he was probably of a similar age.

Times were different, the frat world was different, the legal world was different and most importantly, they were different people back then.

Back in '84, I was sold out committed to moving the Word of God like it hadn't been taught since the first century...and I believed that.

I say let it go....cut your losses and move on...and pray no "MOG" victim should ever sue me...or YOU... for persuading them to sign that green card.

Edited January 19, 2006 by Ron G.

[markomalley]

Verbiage was noted, but he has not pleaded guilty. In fact as the story (and until trial that is what it is) noted his attorney has said no rape has occurred based on that it's highly unlikely he will plead guilty. So based on that fact it would be wrong to speculate a sentence when a trial has not occurred and due process rendered to establish guilt .

What you say is factual.

I would submit, though, that his attorney is simply posturing in order to get him a better plea deal. Of course, that is just my jaded opinion.

Despite that, the poll question was: select which sentence you would pass on this person (if he pleads guilty in court). The if puts it in the realm of the hypothetical. After all, it doesn't say: "the b@st@rd's guilty. Pass sentence on him."

White Dove, the reason I even started this thread was based on a statement another poster made on the "forgiveness" thread currently floating around in the "Doctrinal" forum:

I seriously doubt that those who post platitudes about forgiveness would be willing to proactively forgive all criminals and immediately free them. I doubt that many would suggest that paroled rapists or molesters be forgiven to the extent that they should be removed from sex offender lists.

I was curious in a real world case how some people would act in a situation where:

• genuine repentence on the part of the alleged offender was demonstrated (clearly not a case of "jailhouse" repentence...he would not be in his current situation had he not contacted the victim)
  
• recidivism has neither been proven nor alleged (22 years since the only alleged incident...not what one would call a 'repeat offender')
  

In other words, of all the criminal cases I've heard of in recent memory, this guy would be worthy of some Christian forgiveness. I was curious to see the reactions of some Christians and non-Christians to the case. To see if the abstract 'forgiveness' concept would be translated into something concrete here, or if they'd lean more toward 'throwing the book at him.' Just to see if there is any hypocricy involved here or not.

Obviously, we don't have all the facts: just the details that some media outlets have chosen to provide. So we can't make a realistic judgement, but there've been enough folks who have weighed in to provide some sense of our attitudes toward a real-world example of repentence and accountability.

This will be an interesting case to follow, though...to see how the situation actually resolves in time.

[Raf]

And based on the 50-50 split in the poll results thus far, Mark, do you have any preliminary conclusions?

Half of the respondents say go easy on him, the other half say punish him normally or extremely.

[markomalley]

And based on the 50-50 split in the poll results thus far, Mark, do you have any preliminary conclusions?

Half of the respondents say go easy on him, the other half say punish him normally or extremely.

Unfortunately, no I don't. Although the poll results would tend to nullify the allegation that I cited, because I cannont correlate the responses to the religious preference of the respondents, it's hard to determine if the larger number of "Christians" responded "go easy" vice "hang the b@st@rd." I was hoping to have had more verbal responses in order to be able to do that.

But maybe some folks would weigh in on why they voted the way they did...

[WhiteDove]

Mark

I agree this is an interesting case and it will be interesting to see the outcome. Although I was not aware of your reasons for the post I was attempting to answer the question as honestly as possible. For me, none of the choices worked I just don't see the profit in speculating about something I don't have the facts about. If I was on his jury I would not decide his sentence until after he had due process and so I won't here. When the case is settled I may have an opinion one way or the other. I just read through today's posts and it looks like some others said the same not enough info to make a choice. That would be the one I would have checked also or not my place to make a choice maybe. I realize that the question was hypothetical and I suppose that was my point what I think one way or another will have no profit or bearing on the outcome. So to me it is a waste of time and a exercise in futility to decide sentences for hypothetical cases. and I'm not sure that is what I should be doing with my time from a Christian point of view. I'd rather put my thoughts on something else. But to each his own, I hope you get the info you were looking for from the posts thanks for taking time to email and explain your reasons for asking.

[Lifted Up]

And I would agree that such circumstances do occur. But then you run into how do you hold a man accountable for not reading a woman's mind.

The big problem is how do you hold either party accountable in court when you have only the two parties there and two different accounts of what was said and what happened? In the choice between the risk of having a rapist go free or having someone falsely imprisoned for rape, our principle of reasonable doubt leans to the former choice, as with any accused crime. I happen to agree with that principle, having received (correctly) the benefit of the doubt in a minor case (stop sign) a few years ago. Actually, I believed in it before then. But I shudder at the hypothetical thought of being the victim of a horrendous personal crime whose attacker went free because nothing could be proven. A big problem.

In this case, of course, we have the letter. I guess I would just have to know more about the case before deciding if I had any responsibility for sentencing., even if he pled guilty. The best thing to do of course is to find out as much as you can before deciding. The same reason why in baseball, if a runner slides into the cather at the plate, I do not call him safe or out until I determine where that baseball is...does the cathcer have it, or is it rolling on the ground.

[ChasUFarley]

IF the man does not plead guilty, when he confessed to his crime in other ways when he was seeking forgiveness from the victim, then he is not truly sorry for his actions. If I was the victim I would hang him out to dry just for not saying he was guilty of the crime after he talked about with me via phone or email or whatever. For him to plead "not guilty" after that - that's like peeing in her face after he was done raping her.

Rape is a crime.

He committed a rape 20 years ago.

He broke the law.

He should expect to be punished for it.

He should have considered this may be a possible outcome for his contacting the victim. If he didn't, then he's as stupid now as he was when he committed the rape.

If the forgiveness means as much to him as his laying his personal freedom on the line and risk the possibility of jail time and and criminal record, then he should be willing to surrender. Otherwise, his asking forgiveness was superficial and carries no meaning.

It doesn't matter why the woman was in the frat house. If she didn't want sex, then he shouldn't have forced it. Period. It doesn't matter if they were at a party or whatever - rape is rape. It seems to me that it's implied the woman was slutty because she was present in a frat house. Perhaps she was no puritian, but that still does not justify his actions.

In short, he should take ownership of his past and his present. He did something horrible in the past. He now wants forgiveness but isn't willing to admit guilt. Good luck to him finding a jury that will be sympathetic to him now. He would do better, from my point of view (a woman's point of view) to basically throw himself at the mercy of the court.