In Michigan, parents are outraged by the decision of a high school to allow senior Mitchell Landis to continue to play football after he was arrested and charged with rape. They insist that such arrests could constitute a violation of “good behavior” standards.
Landis is charged with two counts of criminal sexual conduct in the third degree, which would land him in jail for up to 30 years (though that is unlikely since such charges usually run concurrently with a maximum of 15 years). He has posted bail and resumed football for the school.
We previously saw a case in Texas of a cheerleader who was dropped from her team when she refused to cheer for a football player she accused of rape.
The mother of the victim says that the girl was raped at a friend’s house by Landis. After she went to police, she says that two men later grabbed her and raped her again in the woods. She reportedly tried to commit suicide.
The question is whether, given the presumption of innocence, the player should not be removed from the team until his guilt is proven. In this case, the police and prosecutor felt that there was sufficient evidence to bring two criminal charges. That would make this more than a simple allegation of “bad behavior” under school rules.
Source: WWMT
seamus:
““At this point, the risk of danger to others outweighs his presumption of innocence …” Has some one been plagiarizing John Yoo?? ”
*******************
You skalywag, you. 😀 There are no absolutes in this business. We are governed by reason and guided by principle. We are no slaves to platitudes, nor bound to foolishly consistent positions that would do us or the innocent harm assuming we are in a position to avoid it. Emerson had it right all along.
anon:
Let me lay it out with flash cards for you. Weber says to assume that an accused rapist on bail represents a threat to other students (in his majestic words) “approaches the line of absurdity.” In less than a nanosecond of Googling, I pointed up some counter-examples of other youthful accused felons on bail who apparently continued on with their felonious ways after being admitted to court supervision. You may find the distinction between violent rape and violent murder persuasive, but neither I nor the common law notice much of a difference in terms of heinousness–one destroys the body; the other the spirit (as our purported victim sadly learned all too young). And perhaps you feel that a magical beam of enlightenment strikes you at age 21 as opposed to age 18 as was Master Landis, but most people don’t have that experience or that opinion.
I also thought the juxtaposition of Weber’s foolish tautology against stark reality quite revealing of the weakness of his unsupported allegation of obvious innocuousness. I could have put it another way and asked him to volunteer his teenage daughter to escort the accused rapist around campus after dark given his clear eyed support of the footballer, but while that would have the benefit of making my point clear to you and your ilk, it was a tad simplistic and witless for most of the regulars here. From now on, I’ll limit myself in discussion to which you are privy to broad strokes of white and black to ensure your understanding of my argument. Maybe you can then find more videos of toy robots to rebut them. That should be fun.
John Weber talks about one specific student, in the context of a school that allows that student, charged with a crime, to attend classes meaning they think he is not a safety risk.
You tell him he’s wrong and bring in two completely different students with totally different circumstances. One is a guy charged with murder. The other is a 21 year old rapist, not a teenager, where the victim has a witness.
So, in fact mespo, there is no connection. None. Nothing… Nada… Jack… Zip… Zilch… Bupkis. Love, A goose egg, Nought, Nix, Diddly squat. Nil. Divide by zero.
Your point is expired. It is dead. It is a point kicked the bucket, ‘e’s shuffled off ‘is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin’ choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-POINT!!
However, assuming you are a lawyer, I can totally see you pounding the table on this.
All I know is that as of 2005 in the state of Michigan it is illegal for potential employers to ask about or consider arrests that did not lead to convictions.
Now, I know that has nothing to do with this situation except, perhaps, there is some sort of law that should this kid go to trial and be acquitted, enables him to turn around and sue the School board for denying him the right to play football etc.? Without special wording in their code covering such instances, are they, the School Board, playing it safe?
Perhaps someone familiar with Michigan law could give us an opinion.
Anon:
I think most folks can make the connection.
http://www.wwmt.com/articles/quincy-1395829-superintendent-newschannel.html
Quincy Superintendent responds to football player accused of rape
September 14, 2011 5:36 PM
Excerpts:
Newschannel 3 has been told that police came to the school last Tuesday for Landis.
“Does that say to others, we are guilty because we are arrested,” said Quincy Schools Superintendent Craig Artist. “We’re almost getting to the point that they’re guilty until proven innocent.”
According to the school’s athletic code a student athlete must be in good standing with the laws of society. Artist says since Landis hasn’t been found guilty, he’s allowed to play.
…
The school district says it’s trying to balance what’s best for Landis with what’s best for the rest of the students.
“I hope people understand it might not be a personal decision, but organizational decision,” said Artist, “that we are careful about how we remedy the situation. We want to do that correctly and courageously.”
A preliminary examination for Landis was scheduled for Wednesday afternoon, but was postponed. The superintendent says the decision about Landis could change depending on new information. (end of excerpts)
Mespo,
I understand your argument, but preventing him from any activity that an “innocent” student can partake in is a form of punishment. We will have o agree to disagree.
I guess, then, that they are saying “football” and rape are not mutually exclusive.
We are not talking soccer here, then, when we say football.
I guess the metaphorical expanded version of this story is the rape of the American people, the charges, and the continuation of the game out into the glory daze.
I guess some people were just born to be raped, eh?
@mespo,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZwVCjhq3YI
Non sequitur, your facts are uncoordinated.
John Weber:
” Also, the idea that the risk this teenager posses to others outweighs the presumption of innocence approaches the line of absurdity.”
*******************
New Jersey Judge Bradley Ferencz may disagree with your characterization. The new victim probably does too:
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/04/judge_raises_bail_to_1m_after.html
If it’s any consolation, 21 year-old Montana resident, Chaz Fregien, probably agrees with your assessment. No word yet on the opinion of the second rape victim:
http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/article_2749294c-6ea7-11df-b630-001cc4c03286.html
Ron Jackson:
“One is PRESUMED innocent. If he raped her, he is guilty and has been since the offense.”
*******************
That depends on what you mean by “guilty.” He may be morally guilty since the consumation of the criminal act, but he is not legally guilty until the judicial process is completed and his culpability is determined by a trier of fact.
The notion of bail presupposes innocence but takes into account the possibility of error therein and balances the liklihood of dangerousness of the accused, the risk of flight to avoid prosecution, and the risk of danger to the public with the accused’s right to be free to participate in the defense of his case and to go about his business while the case is pending.
rafflaw:
I would ban him from all but educational opportunities. He has no right to participate in extracurricular activities and his presence injects an element of dangerousness into those activities totally out of proportion to the exercise of his privilege to play. Given the heinous nature of the crime alleged; the alleged retribution against the purported victim just prior to the preliminary hearing; the chilling effect on other possible victims caused by his release on bail and his relatively unfettered inclusion in the school population; and the proximity of this student to other students including females at times without the full compliment of adult supervision during the day, I would have no problem restricting his participation until the charges are tried.
Ron Jackson1, September 14, 2011 at 3:22 pm :….The presumption does not require that he be treated as if he is indeed innocent. The presumption merely kicks in certain due process safeguards. This is not semantics…..
——————————————-
this sounds reasonable and least likely to undermine the law.
Habeas Corpus Act? Just because he`s been charged, doesn`t mean he is guilty. I think some rights are being broken here.
Plus I really don`t see how this ban helps anyone, it just helps stigmatise him more.
“In the United States of America, an accused is innocent till proven guilty[.]”
Not exactly.
One is PRESUMED innocent. If he raped her, he is guilty and has been since the offense. The presumption does not require that he be treated as if he is indeed innocent. The presumption merely kicks in certain due process safeguards. This is not semantics.
Indeed, as things stand today legally, it is more probable than not that he did indeed commit rape. The state has already restrained his liberty. He is out on bail, terms of which undoubtedly impose a curfew and restrict movement.
There are large numbers of individuals cooling their heels in jail today because they can’t make bail or were denied bail; they sure aren’t being treated as if they are innocent.
Whether this young man should be allowed to play football or even to go to school is one thing; whether the PRESUMPTION of innocence requires it is altogether a separate matter.
If the linked article is correct in the statement regarding the Athletic Code:
“The Quincy Schools Athletic Code says that student-athletes “must be in good standing with the laws of society.””
then taking an action like benching or suspending a player would be appropriate whether it’s for an alleged murder or a ticket for DUI or littering. This player doesn’t seem to be in good standing with the laws of society even though he hasn’t been convicted of anything yet so it would seem to me that benching him or suspending him would be in accordance with the letter of the Code.
The Athletic Dept. needs to remain consistent with its past practice and if that past practice is to do nothing, then they need to change their code to reflect that.
What is the purpose of such a ban?
To punish him?
To satisfy the community?
To make the school safer?
How does banning him from extracurricular activities differ from banning him from expected curricular activities?
It seems to me that banning him from extracurricular activities prior to the trial only demonstrates this is a ban to punish him and to satisfy the community and not a ban that serves any other purpose like making the school safer.
I’m swingin’ back in the other direction…. We need someone like Ali Soufan to question the young man, I think… ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Soufan )
Mespo,
I agree with your statement until your section recommending that the accused be punished by banning him from extracurricular activities. Isn’t that prejudging him as guilty? I have no problem if the school and authorities took steps to keep him under lawful surveillance, but he is still innocent until the judge or jury state otherwise.
I’d wait for the trial. Like it or not, high school football is an important venue to college scholarships or pro-money.
That said, I’m okay with banning the kid now on one proviso: if he is acquitted AND the accusation found to be malicious, the prosecutor who brought the case to trial is fired.