[News] Patrick Kane being investigated for rape. UPD: DA announces no charges

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Weitz

I meant why would a innocent person settle.. I suggested to make it just go away.

Yeah, theres lots of reasons.

A full-blown trial could take forever, the victim likely wouldnt want that, it would be expensive and it might not actually resolve anything depending on the strength of the evidence.

Meanwhile Kane would be suspended and likely not cashing his $10M paycheques, which he probably wouldnt want whether hes guilty or innocent.

So if a trial takes a year thats $10M that it would cost him in lost wages plus legal fees so either way if it costs less to settle it would be preferable, the State doesnt appear to be thrilled to charge him with a crime either.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Weitz

I meant why would a innocent person settle.. I suggested to make it just go away.

I dunno. Considering the reactions of pretty much everyone in this thread, if I was Kane and even if I was completely innocent but I could make this go away once and for all instead of leaving it up to a He Said/She Said trail in front of a unpredictable jury, I'm positive I'd pay to make it all go away.

People are still referring to her as the "victim" even though there haven't been any charges laid, that should give you an insight into how this will go PR-wise. If they left together and actually had sex, it automatically puts Kane into trouble regardless of the validity of the claims. Innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt goes out the window with rape charges. It's his word versus hers.

Why risk it if you have the money to spare? This is your life you're gambling with.

[d_phaneuf]

Especially with a case with rape charges, where it's reliant on testimony and a he said/she said argument

If she's telling the truth, she gets to avoid having to live through it again by having to testify and also the scrutiny of the next X amount of months. No one outside those who have been in the same situation know what it would be like to go through that.

for Kane, whether he's innocent or guilty he's making the right decision

as pointed above by Locke, the risk/reward is just not worth it for a trial for him, leaving your life in the hand of a jury where the evidence is for lack of a better term emotional isn't worth it for him

I just hope the NHL doesn't leave as is, they should be doing their own investigation

[zamler]

Originally Posted by polak

People are still referring to her as the "victim" even though there haven't been any charges laid, that should give you an insight into how this will go PR-wise. If they left together and actually had sex, it automatically puts Kane into trouble regardless of the validity of the claims. Innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt goes out the window with rape charges. It's his word versus hers.

Why risk it if you have the money to spare? This is your life you're gambling with.

So much this especially the bold.

[JohnnyT]

Esstenially what Polak said, it's going to be a he said she likely coming down the argument over consent, even if he's found innocent in the eyes of the law many will still think he's guilty. Even if the victim comes out saying she was lying some people will think she's only been pressured into saying/believing that. Here's a former attorneys thoughts on the case https://twitter.com/RegressedPDO:

The toughest hurdle in any rape trial is consent. Physical evidence is often there.
It's a "He said/She said" most of the time. Extremely difficult to prove in court. Prosecutors know this.
The bigger the name of the accused, the more expensive the case gets for the County/State, the more national scrutiny.
Lots of reasons for the prosecution to support the victim entering a civil settlement.
The victim can avoid going through depositions, testimony and prep (all very difficult) and possibly losing the criminal case.
The accused may avoid trial, jail etc because of those concerns.
Settlement = confidentiality clause. Gives accused ability to deny it & for his supporters to say "she was just in it for the money".

[ernie]

Originally Posted by Weitz

I meant why would a innocent person settle.. I suggested to make it just go away.

Perhaps. I'm interested in knowing how often it happens that an innocent person settles. I'm really interested in knowing how often an innocent person settles AFTER everything has been in the public eye and is already a black cloud hanging over that person.

[robaur]

Originally Posted by CalgaryFan1988

The problem I see with people getting financial compensation for any law infraction, is that some people might see it as a "get rich quick" scheme.

If money is never introduced into law issues, it takes that whole money angle right out of play.

Maybe nobody has ever been paid for making false allegations (impossible to prove), but I'm sure people's names have been ruined or at the very least tarnished by false allegations made by certain gold diggers.

There's been plenty of people that have profited by making false allegations. There's lawyers that are actually very good at settlement tactics.

I'm not saying that Kane is innocent, but if he actually was innocent, and had to pay this woman like $250K just to make it go away....what kind of justice system is that? Sounds like a stupid one.

At that point...he's just minimizing risk and cutting losses....he might as well have hired 10 high class hookers and they would have still been way cheaper.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The recidivism rate for sex offensives (24.5 per cent in a 15 year window) is lower than the overall recidivism rate for crime (37 per cent).

Scientific American article

Studies I've seen and linked on the government justice websites shows that over 75% of convicted felons are arrested and charged within 5 years after release. This was a study over 5 years and 30 states. That includes all crimes.

Indeed Rape/sexual assault is lower than that at 60% and lower than general assault (77%) but also falls above homicide (50%).

Now this doesn't break things down to what crime they are being arrested for again to know if it's another sexual assault or not. But the Scientific American article has the same number at a considerably lower 36%. In addition, the data by necessity eliminates those perpetrators who were never caught, didn't get caught again, victims that never reported (which is a HUGE problem when it comes to sexual assault), cases never investigated (again a HUGE issue for sexual assaults) and plea bargaining down. And yes some safe guards in place likely prevent re-offense in the case of sexual crimes such as registration etc. However, registration doesn't apply to the case of someone not convicted. The 36% overall rate and 24% rate is likely very much a very low water mark.

The most reliable studies seem to be the ones from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and I admit I'm not an expert in the field at all, but the data does strongly suggest further criminal activity for perpetrators of any crime. Of course it is likely higher for the so-called "victimless" crimes. Again I'm not an expert in the area...just reading stats.

And let's not forget this isn't the first time Kane has been accused of a violent crime. He pled to a lesser non-criminal charge in 2009 for the cab driver incident. IF this violent streak is indeed an issue chances are this is not the last we hear about him.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rprts05p0510.pdf

[Strange Brew]

Man I really hate to wade into this thread. But this talk of the alleged victim agreeing to an out of court settlement has me confused. I have lived in the US and Canada and am far from an expert in either legal system.

But in a civil suit, of course you can have an out of court settlement.

But in a criminal matter, its not really up to the victim is it? If the police and DA believe a rape occurred, then are they not obligated to prosecute for no other reason than to protect society at large? I understand the DA may believe they don't have strong case or if victim refuses to testify, but then its still up to DA to decide to pursue, right?

[Beatle17]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Name one woman who got a big payday for an allegation that was proven false.

And why shouldn't a woman get financial compensation if the allegation is true, jail or no?

The Crown/DA doesn't accept a plea bargain because a woman got paid. They accept it because a trial is hard to win, hard on the victim, and a speedy resolution is often a good alternative. Do you think every charge should go to trial, and none should be settled?

Woman in Kobe Bryant rape case.

[CaptainCrunch]

If he settles and the NDA is signed, Kane is still ruined NHL wise, he'll be toxic public relations wise and there will always be whispers that he's guilty and bought his way out of trouble.

the only way that he wins here is with a full blown vindication, because if it leaks that he paid a million or more to make this go away he looks guilty.

I would think that the Hawks would like nothing better then to get rid of him, it not only helps with their cap, but it gets someone who's radioactive out of their organization.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

If he settles and the NDA is signed, Kane is still ruined NHL wise, he'll be toxic public relations wise and there will always be whispers that he's guilty and bought his way out of trouble.

the only way that he wins here is with a full blown vindication, because if it leaks that he paid a million or more to make this go away he looks guilty.

I would think that the Hawks would like nothing better then to get rid of him, it not only helps with their cap, but it gets someone who's radioactive out of their organization.

I dont know, I just dont see that. They've got him locked up to a long-term, big-dollar contract, hes already helped them to 3 cups and Chicago dont look anywhere close to done yet.

Thats a lot of winning and with winning comes cash.

As for the 'Public Relations' part of it? Its all in the dark and I think he would have to be granted some semblance of the benefit of the doubt.

The DA hasnt filed charges or anything.

[socalwingfan]

^It's really surprising how quickly those whispers go away. It took 2 maybe 3 years for Kobe to start getting national endorsement deals again and he is a much more household name than Kane. I think the Hawks will ride this one out with not too much fall out

[polak]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

If he settles and the NDA is signed, Kane is still ruined NHL wise, he'll be toxic public relations wise and there will always be whispers that he's guilty and bought his way out of trouble.

the only way that he wins here is with a full blown vindication, because if it leaks that he paid a million or more to make this go away he looks guilty.

I would think that the Hawks would like nothing better then to get rid of him, it not only helps with their cap, but it gets someone who's radioactive out of their organization.

This is my point exactly and why he has to settle if that's an option.

He's already guilty in most of the public's eyes and there haven't even been charges laid yet!!!

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

If he settles and the NDA is signed, Kane is still ruined NHL wise, he'll be toxic public relations wise and there will always be whispers that he's guilty and bought his way out of trouble.

the only way that he wins here is with a full blown vindication, because if it leaks that he paid a million or more to make this go away he looks guilty.

I would think that the Hawks would like nothing better then to get rid of him, it not only helps with their cap, but it gets someone who's radioactive out of their organization.

Come on man. While I can't say for sure and nor can anyone else say they feel confident Kane committed this crime based on her word against his there is a fair bit more evidence Ben Roethlisberger may have and the guy just got another extension. Americans don't care as long as you are good at your sport. This will be forgotten in Chicago not long after the settlement.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by socalwingfan

^It's really surprising how quickly those whispers go away. It took 2 maybe 3 years for Kobe to start getting national endorsement deals again and he is a much more household name than Kane. I think the Hawks will ride this one out with not too much fall out

I think the hesitancy to file charges against him helps as well. It casts doubt over his guilt and makes the issue become a 'maybe he did, maybe he didnt, we'll never know' kind of thing and as you said, it starts getting forgotten.

[CaptainCrunch]

Except and I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing, Hockey is different, the NFL and the NBA for example have a pretty big reputation for this kind of behavior by its athletes. Hockey doesn't and therefore the perception is different.

with the NFL and NBA for example a reported sexual assault or wife pounding is another day at the office.

With the NHL its unusual and therefore the public perception is different and its viewed as more of a scandal.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by ernie

For awhile. IF, and I say IF, this was indeed a sexual assault it likely wasn't the first nor will it be the last. Eventually it'll catch up to a person. See Bill Cosby.

Interesting but as the article notes it would only applies to convicted offenses so if you believe the under reporting numbers are correct than the recidivism rate is also incorrect.

Also you look at sex offender convictions and you get multiple victims coming out after the fact supports that their is at least a class of habitual sex offenders

[AcGold]

I'm thinking Kane is done in Chicago no matter what. He bit her? And he hardly knew her? Come on man, gotta be smarter than that. Even if he didn't rape her biting her is just dumb, way to incriminate yourself there bud

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

If he settles and the NDA is signed, Kane is still ruined NHL wise, he'll be toxic public relations wise and there will always be whispers that he's guilty and bought his way out of trouble.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Except and I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing, Hockey is different, the NFL and the NBA for example have a pretty big reputation for this kind of behavior by its athletes. Hockey doesn't and therefore the perception is different.

The hockey world forgot all about the Doug Gilmour case.