Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is plenty of evidence to be collected that is nearly indisputable (DNA), along with evidence of injury or psychotropic/hypnotic pharmaceuticals. There's this thing called a "rape kit" available in every emergency department of every acute care facility in this country. Both medical & law enforcement personnel are familiar with them & all evidence collected is protected under a strict chain of custody policy.
For an actual sex crime; that is.
For a false sex crime allegation; the "evidence" presented is usually little more than being able to prove the accuser & accused were alone together for any period of time.
The consequences of false allegations rarely wait for due process of law, let alone a conviction, so if anything; the consequences for making false allegations should be taken more seriously, not the other way around.
How does relaxing the standards of proof help validate the true victims of rape?
This is true in a case of full rape where there is semen or blood or skin under fingernails. In the case of a sexual assault, heavy unwanted groping, attempted but not completed rape, being able to prove the two people were alone long enough for the assault to take place may be all that there is. Sometimes you don't even have that much. All you have is the woman's word, but for the sake of argument let's say the woman is to be believed. Do we just let the guy walk in those cases? Should we at least penalize them in civil family court or in the case of actors and politicians, end their careers?
In child custody cases, celebrity careers and also with political appointments, unfounded accusations are used to gain advantages or ruin careers because we owe it to the victim to believe her whether there is evidence or not. It seems unfair to the accused on the face of it...but maybe we have to accept this so victims can get justice of a sort even when they can't prove someone is guilty? Maybe we have to accept a few innocent men losing their children or their careers because otherwise we make it harder for women to get justice in cases where a man really is guilty but it cannot be proven?
Absolutely not.
But if you think it's such a good idea, may it happen to you.
This is true in a case of full rape where there is semen or blood or skin under fingernails. In the case of a sexual assault, heavy unwanted groping, attempted but not completed rape, being able to prove the two people were alone long enough for the assault to take place may be all that there is. Sometimes you don't even have that much. All you have is the woman's word, but for the sake of argument let's say the woman is to be believed. Do we just let the guy walk in those cases? Should we at least penalize them in civil family court or in the case of actors and politicians, end their careers?
You're talking about two entirely different things. And your idea that we should short circuit our justice system is perverted.
On the other hand, the court of public opinion is a different matter, but even there , there are legal protections against slander and libel.
So in order to place our best foot forward, the intelligent thing to do is presume everyone innocent until proven guilty....and that is as flawed as humanity.
There are an increasing number of sex crimes where there is video evidence and that's really, really, really hard to dispute.
Sure, I think people who are accused of sex crimes are innocent until proven guilty. But again, it's hard to dispute what's on camera or video. Perverts love to film what they're doing.
Not to get political, but we're seeing that proved wrong right now with Kavanaugh.
Mind you, I didn't vote for Trump nor to I support Trump. I'm neither a conservative nor a Republican. But any objective person should look at the ruckus over Kavanaugh and take pause.
Zero evidence. Zero witnesses. An accuser who cannot remember some key specifics about the incident, such as where it took place. The Democrats learned of this incident in July and haven't been able to provide any substantiation of the charges in the past two months.
And yet, we're all giving this guy the bum's rush to the stocks. There's a 'guilty until proved guilty' mentality behind a lot of this, whether it's a Supreme Court nominee or a high school Spanish teacher.
So in order to place our best foot forward, the intelligent thing to do is presume everyone innocent until proven guilty....and that is as flawed as humanity.
Perhaps an odd way of saying it...but I agree.
One thing I've learned over my time in this forum is that too many posters think that life is an either/or. And as you point out...it's not. It's much more complicated than that.
Not to get political, but we're seeing that proved wrong right now with Kavanaugh.
Mind you, I didn't vote for Trump nor to I support Trump. I'm neither a conservative nor a Republican. But any objective person should look at the ruckus over Kavanaugh and take pause.
Zero evidence. Zero witnesses. An accuser who cannot remember some key specifics about the incident, such as where it took place. The Democrats learned of this incident in July and haven't been able to provide any substantiation of the charges in the past two months.
And yet, we're all giving this guy the bum's rush to the stocks. There's a 'guilty until proved guilty' mentality behind a lot of this, whether it's a Supreme Court nominee or a high school Spanish teacher.
You know. I've been thinking for the past couple of days about how context can start pulling on beliefs.
I support the general concept of the "me too" movement. But I also believe in the statute of limitations for most crimes. I don't care what the illegal offense, I'm not going to convict anyone based on hearsay or unsubstantiated claims.
In terms of Kavanaugh, I'd like Congress to actually find out the truth. I don't know why this has to be on an expressway to confirmation. The FBI could investigate this in a week or two. However, your comment that, "we're all giving this guy the bum's rush to the stocks"...I don't see that happening at all.
These sorts of crimes are often he said/she said situations where it's hard to really prove if anything actually happened. Because of this they are notoriously difficult to prosecute, and guilty perpetrators are often set free. It's been said that it's better to let a thousand guilty people go free than let one innocent person be punished, but that leaves a lot of victims without justice in sex related crimes. Should the presumption of innocence apply to sex crimes, or in the interests of justice for victims should the onus be placed on the alleged perpetrator to prove their innocence?
My best friend just paid 25K + for an attorney to defend her nephew against a crime like this. His grandmother also had to put her home down as collateral for bail money. He was accused by a family member (stepsister) and there was plenty of evidence that demonstrated the claim was false (concrete evidence that he was not even living in the state during the timeframe the accuser specified the crime had happened, witness testimonies about certain other claims being false, etc.) but the prosecutor would not drop the case and it went to trial. My friend's nephew spent several months in Jail, got bad credit due to defaulting on an apartment recently rented, had his name in the papers and news, and then had to go through months of house arrest at his grandparent's house until the trial. I hate to think what might have happened if my friend could not afford to sponsor his attorney fees and he did not have good legal defense. He was ultimately cleared of all charges but anytime someone googles his name, this stuff will come up and that could really create doubt from employers or others in his life and affect his opportunities moving forward.
I may be in the minority but there are situations where people lie about sex based crimes and it is especially horrible because situations like that cast doubt on other people who are not lying about it and really need the protection/justice that the legal system can provide. I'm not sure what the answer is.
This is true in a case of full rape where there is semen or blood or skin under fingernails. In the case of a sexual assault, heavy unwanted groping, attempted but not completed rape, being able to prove the two people were alone long enough for the assault to take place may be all that there is. Sometimes you don't even have that much. All you have is the woman's word, but for the sake of argument let's say the woman is to be believed. Do we just let the guy walk in those cases? Should we at least penalize them in civil family court or in the case of actors and politicians, end their careers?
I'm a woman. I'm a survivor of sexual assault. I also survived over a year of being actively stalked by a psychopathic, violent, sexual serial predator who was investigated, captured & evaluated by the FBI in 1989.
I participated in the mass data compilation done by the FBI during the 1980's-1990's, in order to formulate reliable & consistent Profiling Intelligence.
The delay in the capture, trial & subsequent conviction of my stalker was directly related to my being dismissed by local law enforcement as being "too cute" & wearing skirts that were "so short". I was flatly not believed while trying to convey my perception that there was a ticking time bomb in the community & that both I & women in general; were in danger.
And my answer to your reply is that: No! We should NOT take the word of a woman over the word of a man (or another woman for that matter) when it comes to accusations for which we seek justice through our criminal & sometimes civil courts. Why bother with law & order at all; if you are going to erode due process like that?
I can maybe conceive of a situation during which I could be victimized with minimal admissible evidence left to validate me & I can understand that this might result in somebody "getting away with" victimizing me. In that case:
Lucky me; that I emerged uninjured enough to where the event is that unobvious & I can guarantee that if it was augmented by my own poor judgment; that it will be unlikely to happen twice. I'm underwhelmed by the prospect of looking like a fool for not learning from my experiences.
I don't see this as being a "loss" for myself & if it is; it's an acceptable loss. We patronize children, pets & those with special needs. I'm an adult female; I am none of those. Your proposal mitigates my grandfathers, my father, my uncles, cousins, my sons & my grandsons ... I won't be a party to that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
