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.
I don't take anyone's word for anything. I know better than that because you people will misinterpret things based on your own basis. I'm going based on this video where people like you blatantly accused this man of saying something he clearly did not say. Link me to what the man said in it's entirety so I can see for myself if that is really what he said or if it's another case of selective and creative reading.
I've pointed you to the relevant facts. If you're not interested, that's your call, I guess. I should actually encourage the GOP to run more people of his caliber.
Oh okay, let me refrase that. No you didn't say that all men accused of rape did it. What you are implying is that all men accused of rape should be guilty until proven innocent. To lock all men up without a trail based on the word of a female. Do I have it correct now?
Then let me point out how what you say does not make any sense. You say:
Well as I've been saying and what Richard Black said, how on earth would DNA evidence free a husband accused of raping his wife? This is our point all alone. Here in America it's "Innocent to Proven guilty. Richard Black understands this even though you do not. His comments are based on the laws he did not create, but still do exist. There would not be any DNA evidence to convict or exonerate the husband of any crime. According to the FBI, 8% of men who are accused of rape have been cleared. So using your own numbers, that's 58 men in 24 hours.
Think about the above quote in reference to what you're implying. You would have thousands in innocent men's freedom taken away and have thousands of children left fatherless based no nothing. No evidence at all. No DNA evidence. They can't claim they weren't around at the time of the rape because they live there. So nothing at all. I'm sorry but that is not okay with me. It's a necessary evil to have to have evidence that a crime has been committed before you take away and ruin someones life.
1. No you do not have it correct. I never said anything about foregoing a trial. That would be hyperbole on your part in an attempt to discredit my argument.
2. It appears you are math challenged. One, I don't know where you got the figure 8% of men accused of rape have been cleared. The FBI study referenced on this thread was based on cases submitted to the FBI, not on all cases of rape, and involved cases where there was already doubt about the identity of the rapist, either because it was stranger rape, or because there was exculpatory evidence. So a study based on already questionable identification of rapists will yield a higher rate of false identification. AND, since the majority of rapes go unreported, hence no rapist is ever accused, you can't multiply the rate by the number of rapes. And since only a quarter of reported rapes ever lead to an arrest, and 20% of those arrested won't be prosecuted, your number is dwindling, dwindling, dwindling.
3. As for your reliance on Richard Black, you are ignoring the vast majority of women who are raped who are telling the truth. Because a handful of women lie, you are demanding that all women who are raped prove it incontrovertibly. When you know that such proof is not available.
4. I think any woman that falsely and maliciously accuses a man of rape, and that can be proven, should face the same sentence he faced. Because the woman who do make false accusations don't just harm the men they accuse, they abuse the justice system and their lies discredit all women who have been raped. But I think that women, including wives, that have been raped, deserve the right to accuse a man of rape, and to tell their story. It is then up to the jury, as it is in most criminal prosecutions.
Saying "there's no proof, so we need to let the accused go" does not mean "we should let every accused go." It definitely NOT means the person saying that is cold-hearted!
It does mean that we should let the accused go if we can't prove anything.
Our legal system, note that I didn't say "justice system", is based on a long standing principle of "innocent until proven guilty". Are you proposing that we change that? You know this "innocent until proven guilty" has been letting many criminals walk ever since it was established. If we change it to "guilty until proven innocent", it would definitely solve this problem.
They do not and refuse to understand the point you're making. They already made up their mind that just because the man said it would be hard to prove and the man doesn't support guilty until proven innocent, he MUST be for the rape of married women. Yes, to answer for her, she believes that because more women are actually raped then men are accused wrongly convicted, that we should allow thousands of innocent men be incarcerated as collateral damage.
I've pointed you to the relevant facts. If you're not interested, that's your call, I guess. I should actually encourage the GOP to run more people of his caliber.
You didn't point me to anything. I asked you to point me to them, but you still have not. You cited an article or a speech that I'm still waiting to be linked too.
I evated nothing. I used the same exact tactics and loaded questioning that you used. You just can't handle it and do not like it when the shoe is on the other foot.
Get this through your head because apparently it keeps going over it... If there is no proof that a crime occurred then you CAN NOT convict a man of rape. A man accused of rape is NOT being patted on the shoulder and let go. If accused, the man will most likely be arrested. Then the police will gather evidence and do an investigation. The husband will show up in court and a judge and prosecution will decide if there's enough evidence to convict. If there is not any proof or evidence, the husband is let go. We do not automatically convict a man just because someone makes an accusation. Sorry you don't agree with that but tough.
Yes, you evaded the entire thing. I merely used YOUR words and YOUR logic.
You've satisfactorily proved what kind of "man" you are. I have no need to debate you further on this. Have a tolerable day.
The law is free of passion!
Saying "there's no proof, so we need to let the accused go" does not mean "we should let every accused go." It definitely NOT means the person saying that is cold-hearted!
It does mean that we should let the accused go if we can't prove anything.
Our legal system, note that I didn't say "justice system", is based on a long standing principle of "innocent until proven guilty". Are you proposing that we change that? You know this "innocent until proven guilty" has been letting many criminals walk ever since it was established. If we change it to "guilty until proven innocent", it would definitely solve this problem.
Of course I understand the "innocent until proven guilty" thing.
But as long as the man simply says, "I didn't do it," he's good to walk. No matter what. He can rape his wife every night if he wants to. La-di-da.
How should the legal system deal with that? Or not? Is it just too bad, so sad, for wives? Perhaps we should all decide that we have to fight, kick, scream and scratch so our husbands beat us? Is that proof sufficient? What if the husband says it was consensual rough sex?
I'm seriously asking. How far do you take this argument?
Of course I understand the "innocent until proven guilty" thing.
But as long as the man simply says, "I didn't do it," he's good to walk. No matter what. He can rape his wife every night if he wants to. La-di-da.
How should the legal system deal with that? Or not? Is it just too bad, so sad, for wives? Perhaps we should all decide that we have to fight, kick, scream and scratch so our husbands beat us? Is that proof sufficient? What if the husband says it was consensual rough sex?
I'm seriously asking. How far do you take this argument?
When did I say he is good to walk no matter of what? If you understand "innocent until proven guilty", you must understand that system allows a large amount of criminals to go free. We can only convict what we can prove, no?
I do not know what proof is sufficient as it's up to the jury not me. If I were sitting on the jury, it would take more than just "she said" v.s. "he said" to convince me.
When I say that, I do not mean I have no sympathy for the people who have suffered and I want justice for them too. However, unless we resort to vigilante, we can seek justice for these people.
When did I say he is good to walk no matter of what? If you understand "innocent until proven guilty", you must understand that system allows a large amount of criminals to go free. We can only convict what we can prove, no?
I do not know what proof is sufficient as it's up to the jury not me. If I were sitting on the jury, it would take more than just "she said" v.s. "he said" to convince me.
Many criminals go free.
How many of them get to go home to their victims, and assault their victim all over again?
Yes, you evaded the entire thing. I merely used YOUR words and YOUR logic.
You've satisfactorily proved what kind of "man" you are. I have no need to debate you further on this. Have a tolerable day.
You've satisfactorily proved what kind of "woman" you are. No logic and want laws based on your emotions rather than proof and facts. You ask loaded questions like "so you're okay if a husband who rapes his wife go free" to me saying that there needs to be proof before a man is convicted of rape. You asked me loaded questions so I did the same exact thing to you when you when I asked if you were okay with men being ripped from their families to be falsely incarcerated. Apparently, you can dish it, but it upset when you have to take it.
Men who are accused of rape do not get to just walk free. There is always an investigation. During that investigation, evidence is gathered. If there's not enough evidence (more than he said she said in most cases) then the defendant is let go. Sorry that that's to much for you to understand, and I'm sorry that all men aren't hauled off to jail even when there's no proof of rape as you'd like.
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.
