Wednesday, January 16, 2008

FLINT, Mich. (AP) — A judge says a man charged with raping women he's accused of abducting from Flint-area shopping malls must undergo testing for sexually transmitted diseases.
But the American Civil Liberties Union is complaining there hasn't been a finding of probable cause that Kevin L. Thomas of Iron Mountain committed the assaults.
Genesee County Prosecutor David Leyton says his office asked for the tests so that the women wouldn't have to wait months for results.
But defense lawyer Anthony Pappadakis says Leyton's motion is premature.
The 32-year-old Thomas faces 18 charges stemming from the three incidents in October. The charges include first-degree criminal sexual conduct, kidnapping, carjacking, assault and armed robbery.


The ACLU is at it again, fighting for the "rights" of criminals while trampling the rights of law-abiding citizens in the process. No probable cause? He's been charged with rape. That's not reason enough to perform STD testing on the man?

Does the victim have any rights here? In my opinion, a woman victimized by rape has the right to know if she may have been infected with HIV or hepatitis. Is the ACLU not concerned about that right? She's suffering enough as it is without the added stress of waiting for months to know what her attacker may or may not have transmitted to her. Plus, it's well documented that treating HIV and hepatitis early can have an impact on the severity of the disease. Hospitals require any worker who suffers a high-risk needle stick to start antiviral medication at once, and they require this for a reason. The treatment works. And diseases like Chlamydia and Gonorrhea, if left untreated, can lead to pelvic inflammatory disease which can cause chronic pain, scarring and even infertility. But that's not important to the ACLU.

What's important to them is standing up for the rapists of the world to ensure their rights aren't violated by their victims.

11 comments:

Dan Trabue said...

He's been charged with rape. That's not reason enough to perform STD testing on the man?

Umm, no. Not in our legal system. You may recall that we have a little thing called the right to the presumption of innocence. YOU could be charged with rape and that would not mean you've done the deed.

We are, like it or not, innocent until proven guilty in this great nation of ours. I applaud the ACLU for protecting the rights of ALL Americans. Our rights are what make us great.

Having said that, I would find it shameful if this fella would not volunteer to take the tests, saying, "I not do this crime (if that is the case), but I'm willing to take the tests to ease their minds. Nonetheless, the police need to find the real guilty party."

Although, if I were to find myself innocent and charged with so horrible a crime, I might be reluctant to take the test because it sounds as if you're admitting to something.

Innocent til proven guilty. It's an important premise.

The Loop Garoo Kid said...

Doctor,

Of course Dan is correct regarding the presumption of innocence but the article to which you provided the link was short on facts. I will share what I learned.

The first fact that I have been unable to determine is when th e arrest occurred. The assaults occurrred at the end of October.

Apparently, the usual procedure in MI is for a preliminary hearing to occur w/in 14 days of arrest at which time if probable cause is established, the defendant is bound over for trial. The establishment of probable cause would provise grounds for testing for STDs.

The hearing in this instance was delayed b/c at the defendant's request, he underwent psychiatric testing to determine his competency and such teating takes time.

Nevertheless, as the comment I read suggests, the ACLU would be in error in this instance if MI law also allows for testing for STDs on those arrested for prostitution.

I do practice in the field of criminal law but I do wonder about the 5th Amendment implications. I will, however, leave that issue to the experts.

Regards.

The Loop Garoo Kid said...

Doctor,

Of course Dan is correct regarding the presumption of innocence but the article to which you provided the link was short on facts. I will share what I learned.

The first fact that I have been unable to determine is when th e arrest occurred. The assaults occurrred at the end of October.

Apparently, the usual procedure in MI is for a preliminary hearing to occur w/in 14 days of arrest at which time if probable cause is established, the defendant is bound over for trial. The establishment of probable cause would provise grounds for testing for STDs.

The hearing in this instance was delayed b/c at the defendant's request, he underwent psychiatric testing to determine his competency and such teating takes time.

Nevertheless, as the comment I read suggests, the ACLU would be in error in this instance if MI law also allows for testing for STDs on those arrested for prostitution.

I do practice in the field of criminal law but I do wonder about the 5th Amendment implications. I will, however, leave that issue to the experts.

Regards.

John Washburn said...

Dan, with respect you've missed the point. What does presumption of innocence have to do with this case? His guilt or innonence is not relevant. What IS relevant is the fact that he was CHARGED with raping this woman. Therefore, he is obligated to provide lab samples for STDs to ensure she is protected. If he refuses, then the state should have the power to force him to comply. Suggesting that he has the right to refuse because he is presumed to be innocent is ludicrous. That's like not allowing the courts to incarcerate criminals who are awaiting trial. Would you support allowing anyone charged with a crime to walk free until they are actually convicted? Even those charged with the most dangerous of crimes who would otherwise be denied bail?

And what right of his is being violated? I still can't figure that out. He is being asked to provide a blood and urine sample. Is this a violation of his Constitutional rights? Please explain.

I wonder, would you support a suspect refusing to provide DNA evidence to police who had DNA samples from the victim?

I will say that this guy does NOT have the right to put this woman's life in danger, which is exactly what he is doing. How about the victim's rights Dan? Doesn't she have the right to NOT DIE from someone else's negligence?

The ACLU may fight for a worthy cause on occassion. But this time they are wrong. A criminal's rights do not take precedence over a victim's rights. America is about protecting the innocent. This woman should be able to learn if her attacker may have transmitted a disease to her.

Protecting the innocent. It's an important premise.

Loop, you obviously have access to better documentation on this case and I am interested to learn what you discover. Keep us posted.

SNAKE HUNTERS said...

In This Case, when 'Time Is Of The Essence' in Protecting The (Presumed) Innocent Victim, The Court Must Rule For The Health & Safety Of The Rape-Victim,

and Secondly, for Health Concerns of the Incarcerated Perpetrator AND
His Unlucky Cell-Mates?

Does this "Perp" have a Rap-Sheet? Whew!

Jurisprudence? A.C.L.U.? Hmmm.
King Solomon, where art thou?
Shouldn't this at least go to
The District Court of Appeals?

The Tax-payer should really be
proud of this legal system!

Oh, yes. reb

Robert M. said...

Not sure where I stand. I think you're right in that the woman could be at risk, but at the same time, if we let them do whatever they want to non-convicted criminals, where does it end? Will an indictment mean you should be treated as convicted? Tough question.

SNAKE HUNTERS said...

Not A Tough Question At All.

The man in jail gives up a blood/saliva sample. The specimen sample indicates his
Innocence or Guilt.

Next case! reb
__________________________________
www.lazyonebenn.blogspot.com

The Loop Garoo Kid said...

reb,

I have already advised about my lack of expertise in criminal law.
Nevertheless, your "next case" may have just abolished the Fourt and Fifth Amendments. Sue you want to do that?

Regards.

Robert M. said...

Yeah, seriously, reb. Innocent until proven guilty. Ever heard of it?

Anonymous said...

Snake Hunters sez,

Yes, I've heard of it. Taking a simple specimen from a person in lock-up,

In No-Way Violates the 4th or 5th
Amendment! IT DOES Protect The Rape
Victim from Possible Serious and Progressive Infection! Watch for a Judicial Ruling. If it goes your way, it sets up this court for 'Prosecutorial Misconduct'...

and I'll burn my Bachelor's Degree
In 'Common Sense'.

What ARE You People Smoking? reb
__________________________________
www.lazyonebenn.blogspot.com

SNAKE HUNTERS said...

One More Question:

Is The Alleged Victim of Rape afforded the 'Presumption of Innocence'? reb
__________________________________
www.lazyonebenn.blogspot.com