[SAEalumnus]

Originally posted by Tom Earp
Often Wonder Why oh Why it takes so long to decide for someone to File and Sue for Charges of anything!

Originally posted by GeekyPenguin
She filed a complaint against her alleged attacker the day of the rape. This is less than two weeks later.

Begging your pardon, but I believe you are both correct. According to the news article, the alleged victim did file a complaint with the Macon Police Department on the same day of the incident, which was Jan 10, 2003. In reference to the lawsuit, however, the news article states only that it was filed on Jan 10, and did not indicate a year. The article was published on Tuesday, January 25, 2005, which suggests the lawsuit was filed exactly two years to the day after the incident (approximately two weeks ago).

The timing here is not necessarily unusual. You see, many (if not all) states have a statute of limitations imposed by law on how long one is allowed after sustaining personal injury or property damage to either settle or file suit. In California, for example, the statutes as of Jan 1, 2004, are two years for actions involving bodily injury and three years for actions involving property damage only. While I am familiar with California law by being employed in auto insurance claims, I am not sufficiently familiar with Georgia's laws to be able to quote them from memory, but it sounds like Georgia may well have the same two-year statute for personal injury actions. I welcome anyone more familiar with Georgia's personal injury laws to correct me if I am mistaken.

Turning to the information (or lack thereof) contained in the article itself, it would seem to me, upon initial inspection anyway, that the alleged victim is seeking damages from those with the deepest pockets (not an uncommon practice among personal injury attorneys). The article states that the alleged assailant met the alleged victim at a bar after having had some drinks at his fraternity house. The article suggests that the assault took place at the fraternity house itself, but does not indicate how the pair got from meeting at a bar (where the alleged victim was admitted as an underage guest) to the fraternity house (where he would likely have had some level of alcohol in his system whereas she would likely have been entirely sober given she was underage).

To be perfectly clear, I firmly believe that IF the alleged assailant is in fact guilty of the crimes for which he is being accused (sexual battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress and false imprisonment), then he should be held accountable to the fullest extent allowed under Georgia's laws (not to mention those of the University and of SAE). The burden of proof, however, falls entirely on the alleged victim to prove her case (i.e. the alleged assailant is innocent until proven guilty). In addition to naming the alleged assailant for the charges just mentioned, she has also apparently accused Mercer University of failing to protect her under Federal Title IX and the fraternity for negligence of a duty to protect her. These charges would have to be proven as well.

To wrap up my slightly more than $0.02 on this topic, I'd like to present the following.

First, sexual assault is a serious crime and should be punished wherever proven in order to deter future occurrences. Women should not be made to feel afraid to report such attacks. -- HOWEVER -- I think we all remember the fiasco that ensued from the Kobe Bryant case. I believe that both parties should take proper actions to prevent this sort of thing (to the extent possible anyway) and that any applicable contributory negligence on the part of the alleged victim should also been taken into account. The article does indicate that the alleged victim and assailant had previously dated and had only split up a month previous to the date of the incident, which could have had an effect on the circumstances surrounding this incident.

Second, the alleged victim's attorney alleges "that the SAE fraternity had a history of sexual assault allegations on the campus of Mercer in Macon." The two points I'd like to raise about this are: 1) key word: allegation (not conviction), and 2) the Georgia Psi Chapter had previously been shut down (I don't have info in front of me currently as to why), and was rechartered in 1997, which suggests that any allegations prior to 1997 would be irrelevant as they would have involved an entirely different group of people.

Third, and finally (yes, I know, I'm long-winded), my opinions are my own. I do not speak on behalf of anyone other than myself. I believe an interesting parallel exists here with that idea. Individuals should definitely be held accountable for their own actions if any negligence can be proven, but I think the alleged victim's attorney's primary goal in naming Mercer University and SAE as well in the suit was an attempt to increase her odds of winning a substantially larger settlement if the suit proves successful (of which, of course, the attorney would take a sizeable share). Considering Daniel Day was never charged with a crime because the Macon Police Department did not believe the case was strong enough to submit to the District Attorney for prosecution, it sounds as though her entire case is founded upon allegations alone.

[link to original article]