Special Reports » Law & Disorder

Subscribe

Public needs explanation about case against Ratcliff

  • Print
  • •
  • •
  • 2 Comments
  • •
  • Favorite
  • •
  • Report an error Report error
    • Thank you for your submission.
      Error report or correction
      Contact name (optional) Contact phone/e-mail (optional)  
      Sending report
    • Close
  • •
  • Advocate editorial board opinion
  • Originally published July 25, 2008 at 9:35 a.m., updated July 25, 2008 at 9:35 a.m.

Who knew what and when?

The Victoria community asked that question 10 months ago when former Sheriff Michael Ratcliff was indicted for sexual assault on a teenage boy. The question still stands.

This week, Ratcliff is expected to agree to a plea bargain in the case. The details of that plea won’t be released until he appears in court, but the special prosecutor has said the former sheriff will plead guilty to at least one felony.

Plea bargains are standard in many criminal cases. Typically, prosecutors offer them when they aren’t entirely confident in their case or if they think a guilty plea to a lesser charge will produce the same result as a costlier trial. In sexual assault cases, plea bargains help the victim avoid the trauma of reliving the abuse on the stand.

This case, as everyone in the Crossroads region knows, is far from typical. The special prosecutor should be sure any plea bargain allows the public to see the evidence in the case.

People don’t need to know all of the salacious details about how Ratcliff allegedly committed the crime. However, the public does need to know whether the sheriff acted alone and whether there was any cover-up, as has been suggested by the former city attorney. Ratcliff is accused of committing the crime while he was in office. While under investigation, he was hired by the district attorney as chief of staff. Was anyone else involved in, or did others have knowledge of, his crime?

If a plea bargain keeps the answers to these questions from the public, then the prosecutor should not offer it, and the judge should not accept it. Justice in this case goes beyond the one suspect and the one accuser.

The Ratcliff investigation set off a chain of events that has led to the indictment of four city officials. Victoria’s mayor, police chief, police lieutenant and former city attorney say they stepped in out of concern the investigation was being handled improperly.

The public should expect the resolution of the Ratcliff case to shed light on who knew what and when.



  • Print
  • •
  • •
  • 2 Comments
  • •
  • Favorite
  • •
  • Report an error Report error
    • Thank you for your submission.
      Error report or correction
      Contact name (optional) Contact phone/e-mail (optional)  
      Sending report
    • Close
  • •

Comments

  • ncc1701 ncc1701 Report a ViolationReport a Violation Permalink  | 

    I totally agree. A jury trial may be a costly, drawn out affair, but considering what's at stake here, it could only be considered a worthwhile expense. The only thing that bothers me about it is the credibility of the witness. The prosecution needs a solid case. Ratcliff can not be allowed to walk.

    June 24, 2008 at 8:21 p.m.
  • gotataketoo gotataketoo Report a ViolationReport a Violation Permalink  | 

    While the United States Supreme Court has recognized plea bargaining as both an essential and desirable part of the criminal justice system, perhaps in situations such as this there should be an exception. Especially in crimes of this nature.

    June 21, 2008 at 3:10 p.m.