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.
Care to give more information? What states are you referring to when you say " a lot states", so I can look up these exceptions to rape.
Try ALL of them. While the women's suffrage movement in the 1800's fiercely argued that husbands did not have the right to rape their wives, in the United States the law explicitly excluded husbands from rape laws. After women's suffrage passed, the move to protect wives gained momentum. However, European countries led the way, with some of them passing laws as early as the 1930's criminalizing spousal rape, though in many cases, it wasn't prosecuted as rape, but as domestic assault with much less severe penalties. It wasn't until the 1960's and 1970's that states in the United States began criminalizing spousal rape.
If your first paragraph were true, there would be no need to have a trial. And yet NONE of the posters disagreeing with you has posited that. And I've even stated explicitly that that isn't true. So your statements are deliberate mischaracterizations. If I were sitting on a jury, I would listen to both parties impartially, and weigh whatever evidence was presented, along with the rest of the jury members to determine guilt or innocence.
If you were sitting on a jury, your presumption is that the woman is lying unless she could be independently corroborated--and that's not being impartial.
The only point of this discussion is that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE! You argued the whole time that even without evidence, the man, who you ALWAYS assume IS guilty, should still be charged and convicted of rape because the woman said so. You then accused me of wanting to let a rapist go free. Now you're claiming that I'm mischaracterizating you? You even said that in there was no evidence, you'd "demand" that something be found and used as evidence. Did you not say that? No "evidence" would be presented at trail. It would be a he said - she said case. You're mischaracterizing yourself.
You want to talk about mischaracterization? You say:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
If you (as in me) were sitting on a jury, your presumption is that the woman is lying unless she could be independently corroborated--and that's not being impartial.
What I said hours about and what I have been saying is:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoniDanko
Because you're looking at it from a view that you know the the crime happened. You're looking at it from an invalid view that many women do not and would not lie about rape. As far as you're invalidly concerned, all men accused of rape did it and if they didn't do it, so what, collateral damage. I'm looking at it from the standpoint that both parties are equally credible and I need something - anything to break the tie. That tie breaker would be my evidence. In the case of marital rape, it would make breaking that tie all the more difficult.
If you read the actual quote, the part about the 'nightie' is entirely incidental to the point. The point is just that spousal rape is inherently difficult to prove. We don't want a rapist to get away scot free, but at the same time we don't want an innocent man to be locked up for consensual sex. The flip side of that coin is that the left would tend to disagree--they would like to be able to lock up that innocent man.
The reference to 'nightie' is incidental, i.e. just another case of headline fraud from the left.
You want to split hairs over the details of the quote--go right ahead cause it ain't gonna help.
You would think that the GOP learned its lesson from the 2012 "legitimate rape" fiasco. Old white men disparaging anything related to rape is a vote killer--period. This is the part they just never seem to get. The times are a changin' boys--something's happening here but they still don't know what it is.
Try ALL of them. While the women's suffrage movement in the 1800's fiercely argued that husbands did not have the right to rape their wives, in the United States the law explicitly excluded husbands from rape laws. After women's suffrage passed, the move to protect wives gained momentum. However, European countries led the way, with some of them passing laws as early as the 1930's criminalizing spousal rape, though in many cases, it wasn't prosecuted as rape, but as domestic assault with much less severe penalties. It wasn't until the 1960's and 1970's that states in the United States began criminalizing spousal rape.
I already know and looked up when marital rape became illigal in all 50 states. I knew thw answer to the question before I asked it. The OP that I was talking to said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finger Laker
The issue is that a lot states had spousal exceptions to their rape laws where it wasn't an issue of proving it in a court of law - it was an issue even being able to argue in front of a court of law as it was built into the law as something that didn't exist as a crime
It's not a matter of being vigilante, it's allowing for such things to be a crime so that they can be argued/tried through the criminal justice system similar to what you see with any other rape case and not simply excused or held to a completely different standard because you are married to the abuser
The facts are that marital rape HAS been a crime in all 50 states for years. We are not against marital rape being a crime; we're against convicting someone of marital rape when there's no proof of marital rape.
The only point of this discussion is that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE! You argued the whole time that even without evidence, the man, who you ALWAYS assume IS guilty, should still be charged and convicted of rape because the woman said so. You then accused me of wanting to let a rapist go free. Now you're claiming that I'm mischaracterizating you? You even said that in there was no evidence, you'd "demand" that something be found and used as evidence. Did you not say that? No "evidence" would be presented at trail. It would be a he said - she said case. You're mischaracterizing yourself.
You want to talk about mischaracterization? You say:
What I said hours about and what I have been saying is:
Only, I never say that I ALWAYS assume the man IS guilty. I say that the one person who can tell us whether or not consent was given is the person who is required to give consent. When she says it wasn't given, then that's grounds for the police to investigate and to make an arrest. Clearly, I don't ALWAYS assume the man IS guilty, or I wouldn't have spoken at all about false accusations. There are misidentifications, which I've talked about. There are women who make false and malicious accusations which I've talked about.
So, yeah, considering that you completely misstated my argument in the above post, I think I can say firmly that you are mischaracterizing the people arguing against you. And deliberately so.
By the way, I never accused you of wanting to let a rapist go free. Would you like to apologize for that mischaracterization now, or later?
And when did I say I'd "demand" that something be found and used as evidence? Please cite it. Prove IT.
I already know and looked up when marital rape became illigal in all 50 states. I knew thw answer to the question before I asked it. The OP that I was talking to said:
The facts are that marital rape HAS been a crime in all 50 states for years. We are not against marital rape being a crime; we're against convicting someone of marital rape when there's no proof of marital rape.
And the OP was talking about marital rape being treated as less of a crime than "regular" rape. Because he's the husband. He has special rights.
we would need something else to corroborate what she is saying. Like a history of abuse, or something else other than just she her word.
How did you translate into that "she must be lying"? Saying "we need more evidence" <> "she must be lying."
It's a case of "she said" v.s. "he said." Who should we assume to be telling the truth? The answer has to be "We assume nothing!"
On one hand, we would let a rapist go and on the other, we would convict a innocent person. Either way is a great mistake that can't be made. Shouldn't we exhaust our effort rather than just taking her words for it?
Back to the topic, why do you liberals think it's OK to twist the candidate's words like that? I haven't seen one outrage from you liberals.
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.
