This is the part that bothers me:

"The state does not have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that those two defendants committed the charges that were originally filed against them, after concluding our investigation," Nodaway County Prosecutor Robert Rice said.

I always thought that proof beyond a reasonable doubt was something for a jury to decide. It certainly looks like they have enough evidence to go to trial.

Did the girl have sex? Probably but need the rape kit to be sure.
Was she drunk? Yes
Was she underage? Yes

It honestly looks like the prosecutor is more worried about his career than the law.

Wouldn't a video be some form of child pornography, with the attached legal implications?

Ryan2065: Maybe I just suck at Google tonight, but this is the best I found for an actual news organization covering it: Link (new window)

That was a week ago. I'm holding off on my outrage, there may be a reason those charges were dropped other than my grandpa is powerful.

The video was "never found" after the phone was confiscated and the rape kits hadn't returned. The fourteen year old couldn't recall the incident. Smells pretty rotten to me.

ArkAngel: It's ethically unsound to take a case to trial when you yourself don't believe it beyond a reasonable doubt. As for the case itself: everyone admits the sex, so the rape kit doesn't matter. All the kids were drunk, hence the eldest boy being charged with DUI. They were also all underage, but the Romeo and Juliet law strikes statutory rape.

Please, I've spent enough time with attorneys, both prosecution and defense, to know that ethics barely registers on their internal radar. It's about winning and what you can reasonably get away with in order to win so as to advance your career. For a prosecutor looking at the DA chair that means doing his best to be on cases which are politically advantageous and avoiding cases that are politically detrimental.

Also, diminished capacity for consent supersedes Romeo and Juliet.

ArkAngel: Monkeyhouse Zendo: It's ethically unsound to take a case to trial when you yourself don't believe it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Which set of ethical guidelines are you reading? The prosecutor has almost absolute discretion to bring charges, including in cases where the prosecutor thinks the case has only probable cause.

As for the case itself: everyone admits the sex, so the rape kit doesn't matter. All the kids were drunk, hence the eldest boy being charged with DUI. They were also all underage, but the Romeo and Juliet law strikes statutory rape.

Romeo and Juliet doesn't matter as the girl can easily be show to have been mentally incapacitated by an intoxicant (§3-301) and therefore unable to consent to sex, and that lands this into second degree rape (§3-304).

Here's my question: if the boys were drunk too, and all were active participants, doesn't that mean the girls should be charged with rape as well?

No, because the boys provided the alcohol to the younger girls. If the boys want to take the stand and claim that it was the girls idea, they would be welcome to in the case of a trial, but as pointed out earlier in thread the boys would get shredded on cross examination. The fact that the boys video taped the encounter, and dropped the unconscious girl off on her lawn on a freezing night will make it hard to cloud which party is the more responsible.

MyRandomName: As for the idiot arguing about drunk equals no consent... Do we really want to go back to all drunk men are rapists when both ate drunk? Isn't that a little double standard ish? Rape laws already overwhelmingly favor women. Both drunk = jailed men? Might as well arrest every male bar patron.

Looks like someone is projecting.

So...what are the chances the prosecutor has his eye on higher office, and doesn't want to make powerful enemies?

Eating Old People to Save Social Security: Is it ever possible to get an unbiased source for information?

Don't you know? If you report something, you're biased. It's like racism - if you see racism, you're the real racist.

For example, RedState.com says liberals are reporting on the Treyvon Martin case because they have an agenda (new window)...apparently the rest of us shouldn't give a shiat when an innocent person is killed if it doesn't happen in our own neighborhood. Sorry, not that we "shouldn't give a shiat," just that "giving a shiat is a loss of perspective."

But the media feeding frenzy over this particular story - one out of the thousands of homicides in this country - in apparent response to a left-wing campaign to keep it in the national news, reflects at best a loss of perspective and at worst a cynical effort to inflame racial division in an election year.

BigBooper: Monkeyhouse Zendo: I'll admit I'm curious as to why the prosecutor dropped the cases against the boys if he did so before the rape kit results were returned. It smells political and I think warrants a little more justification that "it was the right decision".

Everyone involved admits that sex took place. That's all the rape kit would prove. No one is accusing anyone of force, and a simple interview of the medical staff would provide the information about any physical trauma. Why wait for the proof that sex occurred when no one is contesting that? This isn't CSI, and the rape kit wouldn't give any information about the mental state of the victim at the time of penetration.

Yep, but if the girl claims she can't remember then that raises the question of why she can't remember. Since they've also determined that drinking occurred then your looking at an in ability to give consent due to diminished capacity and so rape.

At best the girl can testify that she gave consent prior to getting drunk but that's a really gray area.

ginandbacon: Monkeyhouse Zendo: 0Icky0: What does that even mean? How could you tell if something was "unbiased"?

"Unbiased" means "agrees with and reinforces my world view".

No, it means credible. DKos is not. The people on that site have an agenda that usually gets in the way of presenting facts. It's really embarrassing if you are on the left, but at least most people know better than to use them as a source. I just wish the Admins would stop greening them.

When people claim they want an 'unbiased source' they commonly mean that they want a source that they trust. For some that is a source with journalistic integrity and credibility, for others it is a source that they agree with because it tells them what they want to hear. As an aggregation of blogs, DKos can have journalistic integrity provided sources are provided and the article justified with evidence and reason. Similarly, DKos can be biased towards a particular world view and little more than yellow journalism.

This particular instance is just some guy's rant with no supporting evidence but to discard all of DKos regardless of the journalistic integrity of the individual writer is also an indication of bias.

I'll admit I'm curious as to why the prosecutor dropped the cases against the boys if he did so before the rape kit results were returned. It smells political and I think warrants a little more justification that "it was the right decision".

dalovindj: 'In' the lawn? I weep for this country.

The former House of Representatives had a kid and you're concerned about prepositions?

Old enough to know better: Oh you know. Unbiasied = The FOX News version. i.e. "She's a cheap slut whos just trying to destroy a couragous young future job creator."

I chortled

Olympus Mons: These girl better not get pregnant... because they'd have to keep that baby in a smaller, less regulation government Republican world

I sighed

On a related topic, what is with signing petitions to try to force local law enforcement to press charges? Facebook is full of people wanting me to sign a petition demanding that the Florida "self-defense" guy be charged with murder. Call me crazy, but I am very happy that the law does not operate on mob rule.

/Not that random internet posts have ever been anything less than balanced and well researched.

According to Wiki, in Maryland there's the usual Romeo+Juliet clauses regarding age of consent, so it's not rape in statutory terms.

I can't find anything regarding intoxication-based lack of consent, someone else want to take a look? The statutes are Maryland criminal law 3-305 to 3-308 regarding forcible rape, rape by threat of violence, and sex with "mentally deficient persons".

Basically there might not have been anything actually illegal there beyond the basic misconduct of serving a minor alcohol, which I'm ironically a bit too drunk to piece together the legality of in another state when the offender is also a minor. It does look like the other kid with the camera is potentially in some deep shiat, though.

//Apparently Kos bloggers are, as usual, either too lazy or too stupid to spend the 2 mins on google to look shiat up. And people ask me why I don't usually bother clicking their links.

BigBooper: thoughtless: Possibility four: you have only a foggy idea of what rape and consent are

So you have a mastery Missouri law? All four participants are minors. No one has made any allegations of the use of force. The prosecutor may or may not have a video of the fourteen year old on top of the seventeen year old riding him like a porn star, yelling "CUM IN MY ASS!"

Now admittedly, my scenario is a little extreme. Go ahead and give me one that fits with what we do know, that would allow a prosecutor to get a conviction with a Missouri jury.

I AM A MASTER OF ALL LAWS. But seriously it's a common misconception that rape requires force - rape can be forceful but it can also be coercion or having sex with someone unable to consent. Drunk means unable to consent, being 14 while having sex with a 17 year old is borderline statutory rape.

These girl better not get pregnant... because they'd have to keep that baby in a smaller, less regulation government Republican world

ArkAngel: Barfmaker: This blog sucks.

This. Can we get a link to a news article and not some deranged Democrat ranting? Ditto for deranged GOP ranting blogs

I'm getting tired of blogs about news being posted instead of the actual news story. How hard is it to find a source that's not raving lunatic?

0Icky0: Eating Old People to Save Social Security: Is it ever possible to get an unbiased source for information?

What does that even mean? How could you tell if something was "unbiased"? How would it look different? Would it give both sides - reality and fantasy - and refuse to discuss which is more likely to be true?

Oh you know. Unbiasied = The FOX News version. i.e. "She's a cheap slut whos just trying to destroy a couragous young future job creator."

Did they force her to have an ultrasound performed? If not, that's just careless.

Is it ever possible to get an unbiased source for information?

YOUR BLOG SUCKS

I wonder where the kid got his attitude and sense of entitlement?

Props to Subbs for not mentioning which party in the headline. Although, it is the DailyKOS so you can probably guess.