Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Guest column

Prosecutors' Lafave decision protected victim

The following is an open letter from Judi McBride, the victim/witness coordinator for the Office of the State Attorney, 5th Judicial Circuit, concerning the case of Debra Lafave, a Temple Terrace teacher who was accused of having a sexual relationship with a male middle school student.

By JUDI MCBRIDE
Published April 11, 2006

I have been asked many times recently to comment about the Debra Lafave case and the decision by the State Attorney's Office to drop criminal charges against her. Since I have been involved in hundreds of criminal cases for almost two decades, I hope the public will give some credibility (or at least weigh the merits of my comments) regarding this case.

At no time were discussions held regarding Ms. Lafave's appearance as a factor in the decision to drop the charges. Any statements regarding her looks are attributable to her attorney and not anyone employed in the State Attorney's Office.

It is the position of the State Attorney's Office that Ms. Lafave's actions were criminal and that she deserved a prison sentence that comports with Florida's sentencing guidelines.

Why, then, did this office not send her to prison?

The easy thing for a prosecutor to do is take a case to trial, present the facts to a jury, let the jury make a decision regarding the person's guilt, and let the judge determine sentence. A trial would have spared this office a great deal of negative publicity.

Trying this case would have been simple and straightforward as it did not involve any complex legal issues. Why, then, would prosecutors avoid a trial? Because the person to pay the price for sending Debra Lafave to prison would have been the victim.

The public has been informed Ms. Lafave's defense would be insanity, claiming she suffers from a bipolar disorder. In most criminal trials, multiple defenses are presented so a jury has the option to believe every defense, some of the defense, or possibly none of it. The public has only been advised of the bipolar defense, and not of any other possible defense to explain Ms. Lafave's actions.

In my experience, in cases in which the defendant is an adult female, the defense often tries to vilify the male victim by claiming he was sexually aggressive, threatening or demonstrated some deviant behavior. Neither the State Attorney's Office nor the presiding judge can limit this defense. In essence, we cannot protect a victim, even a child, from a defense which is without truth or merit.

Popular belief is that a child can testify in private, does not have to face the defendant, can have an adult testify in lieu of the child, or testify by video. This is not the case. Only in extremely rare and limited circumstances are these steps permitted. This particular case does not meet any of the standards to allow the victim to testify outside the presence of the jury, defendant or courtroom. The victim's identity cannot be altered or hidden.

In child sex-abuse cases, the victim must take the witness stand and tell in graphic detail all matters related to the sexual encounter. Often victims have to describe sexual acts, discuss facts related to their own genitalia, the genitalia of the defendant and describe in explicit detail every aspect of the sexual encounter. The victim is forced to describe a sexual experience that has become the most embarrassing moment of his life. Who would willingly choose to do that?

In most child sex-abuse cases, the jury, prosecutor, defendant, defense attorney and court personnel are in the courtroom during trial. These trials occur every day and most go unnoticed. In most cases, systems are in place to prepare, support and protect the victim during the trial. In most cases, the victim feels frightened yet empowered, and testifying is often therapeutic.

In so-called "normal" cases, if there is such a thing, the victim feels part of a team working to put a sexual offender away for the protection of society. The Debra Lafave case does not resemble anything even close to normal. Frankly, it is beyond anything I have witnessed in the way of a child sexual assault case. What sets this case apart is the media attention.

The victim and his parents were painfully aware the courtroom would be filled with cameras and news media, the victim's testimony videoed with no assurance his face would not be shown on television and in print around the world.

In my experience, the media extends great courtesy and kindness to the sex-abuse victim. This has not happened in this case. The national and international media have essentially taken from this child and his parents any semblance of a normal life. Common to victims of any crime is a feeling of lack of control over their lives and lack of determination and control over what happens in the criminal case. Victims are robbed of their privacy and have no right to anonymity. In no other case has this been more evident.

This young victim has been identified in other countries, his picture posted on the Internet and he has received distressing e-mails because of this case. The vicinity around the family home has been frequented by the media, and his daily activities scrutinized. The victim has been forced to change his life due to media attention.

When the crime happened, this victim was 14. He is now almost 16. He has determined he will not participate in a criminal trial because of the publicity he and his family have endured. He has drawn the line in the sand and said he wants nothing more to do with a trial.

The victim and his family have the right not to subject themselves to what amounts to further victimization and we stand with them in this decision. We would be wrong to do otherwise. Additionally, we cannot ignore the medical expert's opinion that testifying in court would be detrimental to the victim.

As for the State Attorney's Office, we would have preferred to see Debra Lafave go to prison, but we don't believe the victim and his family should be forced to pay the emotional price for her criminal acts. To subject them to that would be wrong.

Ironic, isn't it? The victim is paying the price for defendant justice. That is what would have happened had this case gone to trial. Unfortunately, the victim and the public were all penalized by the judge's refusal to accept the plea arrangement, which would have provided some justice for society and the victim.

I am proud to stand behind prosecutors who refused to cave in to media pressure, take the easy way out and take the case to trial. I believe we did the right thing for the victim.

Beyond the criminal justice system is a victim justice system. The resolution of this case was not what we hoped it would be, but in the end, I know the victim and his family believe we did what was right. It may not have been a popular decision, but it was the honorable decision.

Perhaps the time will come when this victim will want to publicly discuss his thoughts on Debra Lafave. The decision lies with him and his family. However, it will be on his terms and in his own time.

--Guest columnists write their own views on subjects they choose, which do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.

[Last modified April 11, 2006, 02:30:31]