Roundtree v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1990.

581 A.2d 315.

Dressler, pp. 360-361

 

The discussion here is about balancing the good of preventing and punishing rape versus the good of protecting criminal defendants from having their rights taken away or being wrongly convicted or both.

 

In the past, the law has been really terrible to women, basically treating them as chattels.

 

Notes and Questions

 

1.     Here is a conflicted female lawyer who wants to stop rape but is also a civil libertarian and doesn’t want to compromise the rights of defendants.  I think she should be given credit for not playing pure identity politics: that is, she might as well say “I don’t care about the defendants, because they’re men and I’m a woman.  I am in favor of anything that is good for women, especially if it is bad for men.”

2.     I think these two suggestions, that (1) acquaintance rape might be best handled through very private mediation and (2) there might be a better outcome for rape victims if they sue for a tort instead of filing a criminal charge.  Among other reasons, the standard of proof is lower for a tort than for a crime.

 

Back to Social Context

Back to Casebook Notes