I don't think this is too complicated. The jury heard from the "victim" who didn't seem to think she was a vicitim and decided that was enough. If she wasn't clamoring for justice then what was the point of sending the guy to jail?

The charges, though, didn't concern the victim (right?). The charge was for kiddie porn, not statutory rape.

Since the victim never showed up in court to testify, I'm not sure how the jury could have heard her say anything.

Yes, and moreover, even if the charges were strictly for statutory rape, I see no reason to side with the victim's taciturnity. Haven't you heard of stockholm syndrome? It is not abnormal at all for battered and abused children (and yes, she was a child basically) to side with the aggressor. There is also the fact that she probably wishes not to be further publicized and is trying desperately to preserve at least some semblance of dignity. Both of these issues cause me to say that I see no reason to pardon Kelly for his crimes simply for the fact that the woman wouldn't testify. Usually in cases like this, the victim is actually the LEAST trustworthy person to listen to. And you know, video evidence doesn't tell any lies...

Criminal prosecutions are never taken on the sole behalf of the victim(s). Society has long recognised that crime is an affront not just to those who suffer it personally, but to the community at large. Indeed, the vast majority of prosecutions are taken on behalf of society in general. The state has a responsibility not just to the alleged victim of a certain crime, but to potential victims of the alleged assailant. Had Kelly not been tried due to the reluctance of the girl to testify, then the state would have failed in its respnsibility to the wider community.

even if the victim has been bribed or threatened.

this makes no sense. the woman is supposedly 23. it is many years after the incident. if she says there was no crime then there was not. this would not have gone to trial if kelly was not a celeb.

The video tape shows R. Kelly screwing and then pissing on a 13 year old in his own house. That's a crime, period, whether or not the victim decided to take some money to keep her mouth shut.

In Washington state, Mary Kay Latourneau went to prison for fucking a 13 year old student of hers, Vili Fualaau. Mary Kay married her boy toy after she got out but the kid's belief that no crime had been committed was irrelevant.

R. Kelly got the best justice money can buy. It is amazing that all the jurors were so weak minded that not one of them stood of justice and forced a mistrial.

Riiiight. Every time a victim (especially a 14 year old victim) is too scared to bring their abuse to light, we should just throw the whole thing out. That's good policy.

cause she was underaged and it wasn't against the law. this isn't a civil suit (i don't think). It's for pornography and underaged victim.

rustedspear:

this makes no sense. the woman is supposedly 23. it is many years after the incident.

Right. She's 23 now, so it's just as if he f%$ked and pissed on her when she was 23. Only 10 years ago. When she was 13. Idiot.

rustedspear:

if she says there was no crime then there was not.

Yeah, and my meth-addicted cousin says there's no crime when her boyfriend beats the living shit out of her with extension cords and his belt. Fortunately, the cops who show up when her screams make the neighbours phone them tell her it isn't her damned call whether it's a crime or not, because she's hopelessly incapable of making a good decision (much like a 13-year-old getting porked by a rap star), so the state is going to step in, make that call, and put the miserable piece of shit in jail.