|
If you have to use force (physical, mental or chemical - the latter excluding chemical stimulants used on yourself to be able to perform) to have sex with another person - don't!
If If the person rejects you or the notion of having sex with you, don't get closer. If, through you charms you manage not to be considered bothering, you can try to sway his/her opinion keeping your distance unless you clearly succeed and the other person should make clear to you he/she changed his/her mind. If the other person is bothered by you, leave that person alone!
If you cannot abide these rules of common sense, please try everything to learn some empathy.
If all of this is not possible: Dear powers that be - we seem to have reached the point where becoming sexual active persons makes us an uncontrolable danger to ourselfs and others. Please make the step to dying out quick and painless.
(which going to a hospital within a day or two of the event and getting a rape kit done is all it takes. Which who doesn't go to the hospital after being assaulted?)Here are some possible reasons...
1) You may be too emotionally traumatised to do that.
2) You may not be aware that you can go to the police for such a thing.
3) You may not believe that it's worth the trauma and effort of taking the issue to the police, c.f. low rates of rape convictions.
4) You may be a minority (sexual, racial, etc.) and feel that your account of things will not be taken seriously or treated appropriately.
5) You might be scared of the potential repercussions of taking the issue to the police (e.g., threats from the person, social problems).
6) You might be ashamed of yourself and not want to face that it happened to you.
7) You might have had previous bad experiences with the police (especially related to rape) that make you not trust them.
8) You might not have a clear memory of the event until much later if heavy alcohol or drugs are involved.
9) Especially for Americans, you may not be able to afford the health care.*shrug*
The lack of reporting (because of these soundly presented reasons) is the basis of the "low conviction rate." One in six women in the U.S. report they have been the victim of sexual abuse. When comparing these numbers to the number of convictions we get the four percent. Understandably but unfortunately if these women would report these crimes the conviction rate would be much higher.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let me let you in on a secret. In everything but the extreme cases of quality or incompetence, facts drive these cases, not the quality of the lawyer. This from a criminal defense lawyer. There are innocent people on probation/parole or in prison. They are the vast minority.
So? It is very easy for an innocent man to go to prison because the jury favors the woman. The only instances I have seen where a woman accused a man of rape and he didn't go to prison are cases that never made it to court because the police got the woman to confess to lying.
Just being able to accuse a man of rape and force him spend tons of money on a lawyer to defend himself is cause for alarm.
Who cares if innocent men rarely go to jail? They still can't prove their innocence, so they have to pay for the lawyers, while the woman walks away none the worse for her lie. Hell even after the court case the man is still treated like a rapist in his community.
My statistics come from the British Home Office studies which shows the rate of cases shown to be false for rapes is at the same level or less than other felonies which are also the basis of the Rapecrisis.org.uk statistics who have a myth section which shows that only 9% of rapes are "stranger rapes" (grabbing someone off the street, grabbing random drunk people at parties as we are discussing). The rest, the victim is in a relationship with her -- most women who are raped are raped by their significant other. Women who are killed are most likely to be killed by their partners or former partner. You can call the stats BS, but that's the truth.
I'm not sure where being married came into it - most people who go wild drunk parties aren't married and they wouldn't really need the seduction guide that this thread was about. And someone cheating going on drinking and cheating on their partner doesn't give someone the right to rape them or harm them - you are not their judge. Two wrongs don't make a right, two Wrights make an airplane. My being married is not really relevant since I don't drink or go to parties so I'm not sure why you keep bringing that up. The single people in wild drunk parties can do as they wish - none of them deserve to harmed
I have to laugh at the damage of being accused. I'm sure those poor boys in the Steubenville rape - whose filmed their gangrape of a drugged girl and sent it around the internet - have just had their lives ruined with having to go through the court system and getting a one and two years in prison. What with their whole town being behind them, supporting them, and still being treated as the wounded party. I'm sure you'd be right friends with that bunch. The fact the guy who leaked the information to help get them arrested is facing more jailtime than gangrapists speaks volumes about how our society views rape.
Why would you want to risk doing harm? Why wouldn't you want a partner who was enthusiastically enjoying what was going on. Cause seriously, having an actively interested partner is awesome, don't settle for less than that.
The lack of reporting (because of these soundly presented reasons) is the basis of the "low conviction rate." One in six women in the U.S. report they have been the victim of sexual abuse. When comparing these numbers to the number of convictions we get the four percent. Understandably but unfortunately if these women would report these crimes the conviction rate would be much higher.(which going to a hospital within a day or two of the event and getting a rape kit done is all it takes. Which who doesn't go to the hospital after being assaulted?)Here are some possible reasons...
1) You may be too emotionally traumatised to do that.
2) You may not be aware that you can go to the police for such a thing.
3) You may not believe that it's worth the trauma and effort of taking the issue to the police, c.f. low rates of rape convictions.
4) You may be a minority (sexual, racial, etc.) and feel that your account of things will not be taken seriously or treated appropriately.
5) You might be scared of the potential repercussions of taking the issue to the police (e.g., threats from the person, social problems).
6) You might be ashamed of yourself and not want to face that it happened to you.
7) You might have had previous bad experiences with the police (especially related to rape) that make you not trust them.
8) You might not have a clear memory of the event until much later if heavy alcohol or drugs are involved.
9) Especially for Americans, you may not be able to afford the health care.*shrug*
I'm of the mind that I would rather let guilty people go free than convict innocent people accidentally. I also don't value testimony as evidence, so if there is no physical evidence, I'll be hard pressed to find the defendant guilty.
|
My mother is a social worker and has told me little snippets of her experiences with rape convictions. Namely: they rarely actually get to court at all, and even if they do, the likelihood of getting the rapist punished is incredibly low. And this includes cases that I'm sure everyone here would consider rape, such as molesting a child. In these cases, it's very much a 'me vs. you' situation, and that tends to conclude with there not being enough evidence to convict.
I've yet to see any evidence that there's such a plethora of women out there who want to drag a man through the mud with fake rape claims (and worse yet, get away with it). Certainly they exist, there are bad people of all sorts out there, but not to such an extent that is suggested.
My statistics come from the British Home Office studies which shows the rate of cases shown to be false for rapes is at the same level or less than other felonies which are also the basis of the Rapecrisis.org.uk statistics who have a myth section which shows that only 9% of rapes are "stranger rapes" (grabbing someone off the street, grabbing random drunk people at parties as we are discussing). The rest, the victim is in a relationship with her -- most women who are raped are raped by their significant other. Women who are killed are most likely to be killed by their partners or former partner. You can call the stats BS, but that's the truth.
I'm not sure where being married came into it - most people who go wild drunk parties aren't married and they wouldn't really need the seduction guide that this thread was about. And someone cheating going on drinking and cheating on their partner doesn't give someone the right to rape them or harm them - you are not their judge. Two wrongs don't make a right, two Wrights make an airplane. My being married is not really relevant since I don't drink or go to parties so I'm not sure why you keep bringing that up. The single people in wild drunk parties can do as they wish - none of them deserve to harmed
I have to laugh at the damage of being accused. I'm sure those poor boys in the Steubenville rape - whose filmed their gangrape of a drugged girl and sent it around the internet - have just had their lives ruined with having to go through the court system and getting a one and two years in prison. What with their whole town being behind them, supporting them, and still being treated as the wounded party. I'm sure you'd be right friends with that bunch. The fact the guy who leaked the information to help get them arrested is facing more jailtime than gangrapists speaks volumes about how our society views rape.
Why would you want to risk doing harm? Why wouldn't you want a partner who was enthusiastically enjoying what was going on. Cause seriously, having an...
I have no idea what you are going on about. 1. You can't track false-rape charges. You have no idea whether or not they were false. 2. You define things that are not rape as rape, making stats about rape further useless. 3. I don't know how someone gets 1-2 years for rape, but I am against mob justice. The person who leaked that video was wrong for not handing it over to the courts. I'm sure no one wants their rape video on public display, especially the victim. 4. The amount of jail time a person faces speaks nothing about are societies views on rape. The Steubenville boys face much larger sentences before their actual punishment was decided.
Your last part assumes what I advocate should be legal are action that I would perform. I already said that you should only have sex with people that are your SO, people you are basically married too.
Now there is a large difference between what people should do and what should be illegal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
you'd rather let a rapist walk free then at least give some solace to the victim?
Are you dumb?
I would rather let rapist walk free than throw innocent men in prison for a crime they didn't commit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My jaw drops. I can't believe such a statement could be uttered. Even if you ignore sexual sadists that evolve into mass murderers usually start with sexual assault and it's the lack of convictions that allow them to fly under the radar, the very idea that you'd automatically assume that the victim was lying just because there was no physical evidence . . . people wonder why rape often goes unreported . . . well there's your answer.
The defendant is innocent until proven guilty. If you lack proof, we should assume you are lying. It's called not having false positives. You have to let some who actually did it to get away to assure that the people who didn't do it are not falsely convicted.
My mother is a social worker and has told me little snippets of her experiences with rape convictions. Namely: they rarely actually get to court at all, and even if they do, the likelihood of getting the rapist punished is incredibly low. And this includes cases that I'm sure everyone here would consider rape, such as molesting a child. In these cases, it's very much a 'me vs. you' situation, and that tends to conclude with there not being enough evidence to convict.
I've yet to see any evidence that there's such a plethora of women out there who want to drag a man through the mud with fake rape claims (and worse yet, get away with it). Certainly they exist, there are bad people of all sorts out there, but not to such an extent that is suggested.
They do exist though. Which means are legal proceeding have to account for them. The law is about protecting the innocent not persecuting the guilty. If some guilty people have to get away with it to protect all the innocent people falsely accused then that is how it should be.
The problem with our legal system is that we both let guilty people get away with it and convict innocent people.
Exactly. Innocent until proven guilty is the law of the land.
If you want to construe that as "assume the victim is lying" then you have to construe it as "assume the murder victim is still alive".
Guy Humual: always worth a chuckle.
Let me let you in on a secret. In everything but the extreme cases of quality or incompetence, facts drive these cases, not the quality of the lawyer. This from a criminal defense lawyer. There are innocent people on probation/parole or in prison. They are the vast minority.So? It is very easy for an innocent man to go to prison because the jury favors the woman. The only instances I have seen where a woman accused a man of rape and he didn't go to prison are cases that never made it to court because the police got the woman to confess to lying.
Just being able to accuse a man of rape and force him spend tons of money on a lawyer to defend himself is cause for alarm.
Who cares if innocent men rarely go to jail? They still can't prove their innocence, so they have to pay for the lawyers, while the woman walks away none the worse for her lie. Hell even after the court case the man is still treated like a rapist in his community.
If your issue is that people report crimes, then the prosecutor files cases on that accusation, then the defendant hires (or pursuant to the 6th Amendment is provided counsel). What's your solution?
Knowing full well that they're likely to continue assaulting? Sorry ma'am but it's your word against his and that means he gets to go free. Maybe next time you can get some bruises.you'd rather let a rapist walk free then at least give some solace to the victim?Are you dumb?
I would rather let rapist walk free than throw innocent men in prison for a crime they didn't commit.
I see.
So you're suggesting that we should suspend the rule of law because "rape is bad, mm'kay"? Rape is so heinous a crime we can't risk even having trials now?
If your issue is that people report crimes, then the prosecutor files cases on that accusation, then the defendant hires (or pursuant to the 6th Amendment is provided counsel). What's your solution?
I think his proposed solution is that felony charges without any physical evidence to back it up oughtn't go to trial.
If your issue is that people report crimes, then the prosecutor files cases on that accusation, then the defendant hires (or pursuant to the 6th Amendment is provided counsel). What's your solution?Let me let you in on a secret. In everything but the extreme cases of quality or incompetence, facts drive these cases, not the quality of the lawyer. This from a criminal defense lawyer. There are innocent people on probation/parole or in prison. They are the vast minority.So? It is very easy for an innocent man to go to prison because the jury favors the woman. The only instances I have seen where a woman accused a man of rape and he didn't go to prison are cases that never made it to court because the police got the woman to confess to lying.
Just being able to accuse a man of rape and force him spend tons of money on a lawyer to defend himself is cause for alarm.
Who cares if innocent men rarely go to jail? They still can't prove their innocence, so they have to pay for the lawyers, while the woman walks away none the worse for her lie. Hell even after the court case the man is still treated like a rapist in his community.
I would have the government cover the legal fees and any defendant found not guilty in criminal trails and I would want there to be no such thing as the guilty plea for a lesser sentence. If you plea guilty you take the full sentence.
The defendant gets a trial to determine guilt or innocence, yet you've automatically called the potential victim a liar if it's not a violent assault. Suppose she's been roughed up as well? I suppose he could say she likes rough sex or that the wounds were self inflected and you'd happily let the accused go.My jaw drops. I can't believe such a statement could be uttered. Even if you ignore sexual sadists that evolve into mass murderers usually start with sexual assault and it's the lack of convictions that allow them to fly under the radar, the very idea that you'd automatically assume that the victim was lying just because there was no physical evidence . . . people wonder why rape often goes unreported . . . well there's your answer.The defendant is innocent until proven guilty. If you lack proof, we should assume you are lying. It's called not having false positives. You have to let some who actually did it to get away to assure that the people who didn't do it are not falsely convicted.
I suspect you're purposely misconstruing statements to get a rise out of people. That is your modus operandi.
Under the law, the accused are assumed innocent until proven guilty.
Ask yourself, is it more important that SOMEONE go to jail when a woman is raped than that person be the actual criminal? Or are you just looking for your pound of flesh?
The defendant gets a trial to determine guilt or innocence, yet you've automatically called the potential victim a liar if it's not a violent assault. Suppose she's been roughed up as well? I suppose he could say she likes rough sex or that the wounds were self inflected and you'd happily let the accused go.My jaw drops. I can't believe such a statement could be uttered. Even if you ignore sexual sadists that evolve into mass murderers usually start with sexual assault and it's the lack of convictions that allow them to fly under the radar, the very idea that you'd automatically assume that the victim was lying just because there was no physical evidence . . . people wonder why rape often goes unreported . . . well there's your answer.The defendant is innocent until proven guilty. If you lack proof, we should assume you are lying. It's called not having false positives. You have to let some who actually did it to get away to assure that the people who didn't do it are not falsely convicted.
She should get a rape kit done. Then she has loads of medical evidence that she was raped and performed an action that showed she felt raped.
Nobody would plea out then, even if they were guilty, everything would go to trial and court costs would be through the roof.
So?
I would have the government cover the legal fees and any defendant found not guilty in criminal trails and I would want there to be no such thing as the guilty plea for a lesser sentence. If you plea guilty you take the full sentence.
The first part seems reasonable.
The second part is completely infeasible and would cause our justice system to come to a screeching halt. 95% of felony convictions in the US are a result of plea bargains and never go to a jury trial.| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The British Home Office keeps track of rape allegations that are later proven to be false - thereby tracking false-rape charges. They are the ones defining rape and defining false rape charges for the UK, not me, so 2 doesn't make sense.
Research the case - cause seriously, this was international news - One got one year for the gangrape, one got two for gangrape and sending the video of a minor being raped among his friends and online. The video was already in the public space and used to ruin the victim's life - the tweets, instagrams, facebook messages, videos, and pictures were all in the public domain already, they were put there by the rapists themselves while they were doing. They video'ed themselves doing it - she was obviously unconsciously in the video's and the messages they sent say she was drugged so they could do this - I'm not sure how we get clearer than that. The hackers are accused of released the rapists' names. That's it - they could get 10 years if convicted for releasing their names after they were already in protective custody (so no mob justice).
And punishments in society are meant to fit our perspective of the crime. So if we give 1 year for one crime and ten years for another, which crime do we think is the most severe?
And punishments in society are meant to fit our perspective of the crime. So if we give 1 year for one crime and ten years for another, which crime do we think is the most severe?
I know this is going to sound flip, but it's not.
You're absolutely right that the criminal justice system is out of whack.If you are making the assumption that length of conviction relates to perceived severity of the crime, you get a lot of wonky results. Which is not unrelated to the vast disparities in conviction time (and rates) of criminals from different socioeconomic backgrounds.
Here in the states, people get 20 years for dealing marijuana and 6 months for manslaughter. The corporate criminals behind the crash have yet to have any charges brought against them.
In short, the reality is that sentencing often doesn't comport with the severity of the convicted crime.
She should get a rape kit done. Then she has loads of medical evidence that she was raped and performed an action that showed she felt raped.The defendant gets a trial to determine guilt or innocence, yet you've automatically called the potential victim a liar if it's not a violent assault. Suppose she's been roughed up as well? I suppose he could say she likes rough sex or that the wounds were self inflected and you'd happily let the accused go.My jaw drops. I can't believe such a statement could be uttered. Even if you ignore sexual sadists that evolve into mass murderers usually start with sexual assault and it's the lack of convictions that allow them to fly under the radar, the very idea that you'd automatically assume that the victim was lying just because there was no physical evidence . . . people wonder why rape often goes unreported . . . well there's your answer.The defendant is innocent until proven guilty. If you lack proof, we should assume you are lying. It's called not having false positives. You have to let some who actually did it to get away to assure that the people who didn't do it are not falsely convicted.What evidence of rape? Evidence of sex, yes. Possibly even evidence of rough sex.
The rape kit does not give evidence of Consent, which is key to rape.
Or is it only rape if she fights back hard enough? Does she need to be beaten? Increasing her chances of being seriously injured or killed, by the way.By the way, if you think testimony shouldn't be given credence in court, does that go for the accused's side of the story as well?
Yep!
By getting a prompt rape kit the victim clearly shows that they felt raped. The kit further proves that sex was had. It also deduces blood alcohol content and the presence of drugs. From their it can be calculated whether or not the victim could have physically given consent (as I defined it).
I'm sure I'm missing all sorts of legal subtleties (I'm not a lawyer), but as a jury member I would require actual proof before I give a guilty verdict. This stance is caused by the liars and people who try to call consensual sex rape.
What evidence of rape? Evidence of sex, yes. Possibly even evidence of rough sex.
The rape kit does not give evidence of Consent, which is key to rape.
Or is it only rape if she fights back hard enough? Does she need to be beaten? Increasing her chances of being seriously injured or killed, by the way.By the way, if you think testimony shouldn't be given credence in court, does that go for the accused's side of the story as well?
What you're left with, then, is saying that you need no evidence to convict someone for a felony. Do you not find that problematic?
I think he was also saying that simply GETTING the rape kit and reporting the crime right away goes a long way to providing circumstantial evidence. If I waited a month after being attacked and mugged to go to the police, they absolutely positively wouldn't take me seriously.
I guess the question I'm trying to present is this: why should rape be the exception to every rule that we have on the books about criminal justice?
If your issue is that people report crimes, then the prosecutor files cases on that accusation, then the defendant hires (or pursuant to the 6th Amendment is provided counsel). What's your solution?I think his proposed solution is that felony charges without any physical evidence to back it up oughtn't go to trial.
Even if there is a confession?
Even if the crime is of a type that won't leave physical evidence?
Even if the victim is a child (who often delays reporting)?
The British Home Office keeps track of rape allegations that are later proven to be false - thereby tracking false-rape charges. They are the ones defining rape and defining false rape charges for the UK, not me, so 2 doesn't make sense.
Research the case - cause seriously, this was international news - One got one year for the gangrape, one got two for gangrape and sending the video of a minor being raped among his friends and online. The video was already in the public space and used to ruin the victim's life - the tweets, instagrams, facebook messages, videos, and pictures were all in the public domain already, they were put there by the rapists themselves while they were doing. They video'ed themselves doing it - she was obviously unconsciously in the video's and the messages they sent say she was drugged so they could do this - I'm not sure how we get clearer than that. The hackers are accused of released the rapists' names. That's it - they could get 10 years if convicted for releasing their names after they were already in protective custody (so no mob justice).
And punishments in society are meant to fit our perspective of the crime. So if we give 1 year for one crime and ten years for another, which crime do we think is the most severe?
1. Your stats are still BS because they don't include false rape charges that were not proven to be false.
2. The hackers attempted to invoke mob justice instead of letting the courts decide. That is a crime.
3. You are dumb. Facing 10 years doesn't mean you will get ten years. The hackers could be let off with a fine. Furthermore, the crime is but one factor of many that determines someones sentence. Comparing sentences is no way to compare how society views a crime. More so, laws do not reflect societies stances. If they did we wouldn't be charging kids for the creation of child pornography for texting pictures of their junk to their BF or GF.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
To try and bring this back full circle, that's why people are arguing that the best thing is to encourage a culture of "yes means yes" in society - the posts that say if a woman isn't screaming or physically fighting, it implies consent, that if she's drinking at a party she's given up any expectation that she shouldn't be taken advantage of, or that if the reactions of a traumatized victim aren't absolutely rationally designed to lead immediately to the victim's assaulter's arrest, that's just their fault all combine to tell women that its their responsibility to live in fear of sexual assault at all times. The problem is, while the vast majority if men don't assault women, those who do generally are serial offenders - hence the vast difference between the proportion of women assaulted, and the proportion of men who assault.
this article leads to details of an anonymous survey where 6% of men self reported as rapists, as long as the word rape wasn't in the question. Those that admitted to raping more than one woman self reported an average of over 5 victims each.
I don't know the answers to the justice system side of things, but I think we can make improvements in our own little corner to our culture, so these guys that do have a pattern of sexual assault don't feel like most of society is filled with apologists that will excuse their actions with "boys will be boys" type comments.
Look at it this way: if guys that prey on girls are called out and stopped before they assault 5 or more women, and its as much men's responsibility to not be that guy as it is women's to not be raped, I think the relaxing of fear on the part of women will make the dating scene a lot less frustrating for guys too, as they no longer have to sit there and prove over and over again they're not a rapist.
I apologize for any mistakes in spelling, grammar and punctuation - this phone screen is really small and not great for typing.
If your issue is that people report crimes, then the prosecutor files cases on that accusation, then the defendant hires (or pursuant to the 6th Amendment is provided counsel). What's your solution?I think his proposed solution is that felony charges without any physical evidence to back it up oughtn't go to trial.Even if there is a confession?
Even if the crime is of a type that won't leave physical evidence?
Even if the victim is a child (who often delays reporting)?
Those are not questions for me, I was merely proffering what I believed the other gentleman was suggesting.
However, out of curiosity, do confessed crimes typically go to trial? Or isn't that an instance of pleading.
I can't think of a crime that doesn't leave physical evidence. Digital files and records are considered physical evidence, or at least in the vernacular we're using. If the accused took a picture of the alleged victim naked and unconscious the night of the incident, that photo would be physical evidence.
The question about children is too vague. I'm just trying to discern blanket rules for all criminal/felony charges.
If your issue is that people report crimes, then the prosecutor files cases on that accusation, then the defendant hires (or pursuant to the 6th Amendment is provided counsel). What's your solution?I think his proposed solution is that felony charges without any physical evidence to back it up oughtn't go to trial.Even if there is a confession?
Even if the crime is of a type that won't leave physical evidence?
Even if the victim is a child (who often delays reporting)?
I have already stated that I do not value confessions. Some people will take guilty pleas not because they are guilty, but because they don't feel they could win the court case with a public defender.
What crimes do not leave any physical evidence?
The last one is tricky. We should keep in mind that children can lie and do so often. An investigation should be done. If no evidence but the child's testimony is found then we should drop the case, but keep the accusation on record should another victim step forward. Regardless, I still wouldn't convict a person if there was no proof of their actions.
|
|
She should get a rape kit done. Then she has loads of medical evidence that she was raped and performed an action that showed she felt raped.
Er...not really. It might show she had sex. It might show who she had sex with if there's DNA and that SNA can be matched to someone else. Having physical proof of rape would have to almost be some sort of recording to show the presence or lack thereof of consent, and a full blood panel sufficiently close to the time of the assault to prove the ability or lack thereof to give consent.
the posts that say if a woman isn't screaming or physically fighting, it implies consent, that if she's drinking at a party she's given up any expectation that she shouldn't be taken advantage of, or that if the reactions of a traumatized victim aren't absolutely rationally designed to lead immediately to the victim's assaulter's arrest, that's just their fault all combine to tell women that its their responsibility to live in fear of sexual assault at all times.
I am unsure what posts you are referring to, but I would suggest you are probably selectively interpreting peoples' stances in a negative light.
The most I've seen someone say is that a woman who gets drunk at a party isn't completely blameless for things that happen to her. Which is not at all the same as saying she's given up all expectation that she won't get taken advantage of.
The rest of what you say I agree with.
I think one of many things we need to do is foster a culture that encourages everyone to report sexual assault as soon as it happens, to be more vocal about their own boundaries, and to be as clear as crystal when it comes to communicating consent.
Nobody would plea out then, even if they were guilty, everything would go to trial and court costs would be through the roof.
Not really. The court costs are only assessed against the defendant if they plead guilty or are found guilty. The state already bears the vast majority of costs in criminal defense through the 6th Amendment right to counsel. States handle that in various ways; from judicial appointment of counsel to professional public defender systems.
Pleas of guilty vs. trials are usually more about mitigation of risk.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Er...not really. It might show she had sex. It might show who she had sex with if there's DNA and that SNA can be matched to someone else. Having physical proof of rape would have to almost be some sort of recording to show the presence or lack thereof of consent, and a full blood panel sufficiently close to the time of the assault to prove the ability or lack thereof to give consent.
She should get a rape kit done. Then she has loads of medical evidence that she was raped and performed an action that showed she felt raped.
Are you actually suggesting rape victims shouldn't get rape kits?
Whether there is indeed "tons of medical evidence" set aside for the moment, that a victim promptly reported a crime and had a rape kit performed goes a long way to securing a conviction.
To try and bring this back full circle, that's why people are arguing that the best thing is to encourage a culture of "yes means yes" in society - the posts that say if a woman isn't screaming or physically fighting, it implies consent, that if she's drinking at a party she's given up any expectation that she shouldn't be taken advantage of, or that if the reactions of a traumatized victim aren't absolutely rationally designed to lead immediately to the victim's assaulter's arrest, that's just their fault all combine to tell women that its their responsibility to live in fear of sexual assault at all times. The problem is, while the vast majority if men don't assault women, those who do generally are serial offenders - hence the vast difference between the proportion of women assaulted, and the proportion of men who assault.
this article leads to details of an anonymous survey where 6% of men self reported as rapists, as long as the word rape wasn't in the question. Those that admitted to raping more than one woman self reported an average of over 5 victims each.
I don't know the answers to the justice system side of things, but I think we can make improvements in our own little corner to our culture, so these guys that do have a pattern of sexual assault don't feel like most of society is filled with apologists that will excuse their actions with "boys will be boys" type comments.
Look at it this way: if guys that prey on girls are called out and stopped before they assault 5 or more women, and its as much men's responsibility to not be that guy as it is women's to not be raped, I think the relaxing of fear on the part of women will make the dating scene a lot less frustrating for guys too, as they no longer have to sit there and prove over and over again they're not a rapist.
I apologize for any mistakes in spelling, grammar and punctuation - this phone screen is really small and not great for typing.
I think we can all agree that "yes means yes". No one here has been advocating sex without consent.
Where there is a differing of opinion is when a person can give consent. Some people here would like to claim that if a woman is drunk enough when giving consent then having sex with her is rape. While some of us say that if she can give consent regardless of how much she has drank and is still physically capable of sex, then sex with that person is not rape.
Some people in this thread have went so far as to call asking for consent multiple times rape. Even if no sex is had. Then it devolved into how these accusations are degrading our legal system and preventing actual rapist from seeing justice because the amount of proof needed for a conviction increases do to all the false-rape charges and definitions of rape, and our need to not wrongly convict innocent men just so we can catch 100% of all the rapist on their first offense.
intimidating a witness, emotional/ psychological abuse. Just off the top of my head.
What crimes do not leave any physical evidence?
Your not the lawyer I asked this question to. I have no idea if anything you said is an actual crime.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh god, please don't imply I'd go for one of those goblins. Hook me up with a cute half-elf or something, eh?
*runs away from the anti-goblinism PC police* Down with goblin-affirmative action!
I'd also protest at being used as an example of a potential rapist, by both of you, but I'm so inured to the rampant anti-goblin bigotry in this society, it just rolls off my back.
Anyway, I don't have the time to read everybody's posts, but there was one from Comrade Mean DM that looked like I totally agreed with [OHWFA! fistbump] and I've liked everything I've seen from Sister Margatroid.
I appreciate the constant favoriting from Comrade Meatrace, but he always gets too animated in these types of threads for me to return the favor. Not that people haven't been getting animated with him, but I'm a fan of having a thick skin.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The British Home Office keeps track of rape allegations that are later proven to be false - thereby tracking false-rape charges. They are the ones defining rape and defining false rape charges for the UK, not me, so 2 doesn't make sense.
Research the case - cause seriously, this was international news - One got one year for the gangrape, one got two for gangrape and sending the video of a minor being raped among his friends and online. The video was already in the public space and used to ruin the victim's life - the tweets, instagrams, facebook messages, videos, and pictures were all in the public domain already, they were put there by the rapists themselves while they were doing. They video'ed themselves doing it - she was obviously unconsciously in the video's and the messages they sent say she was drugged so they could do this - I'm not sure how we get clearer than that. The hackers are accused of released the rapists' names. That's it - they could get 10 years if convicted for releasing their names after they were already in protective custody (so no mob justice).
And punishments in society are meant to fit our perspective of the crime. So if we give 1 year for one crime and ten years for another, which crime do we think is the most severe?
The boys got that period of time because they were convicted as juveniles. We treat juvenile punishment differently than that of adults. The individual that released the names is an adult. Furthermore he violated federal law. Our federal judicial system is much harsher than most states.
So you're saying that if every case went to trial vs a plea there wouldn't be a jump in court costs? I understand that the courts are pretty crowded already I'd think that if everyone went to trial that it would put the demand up. Just to be clear I'm talking about the costs to the state not to the individual.
Hey! I think we found some common ground.
Yeah, I have to imagine that jury trials cost more than plea bargains. If nothing else, it's use of a courtroom and associated staff/officials over a longer period of time.Considering, as I said, that 95% of convictions are gotten through plea deals rather than trials, I'd have to imagine that a 2000% jump in jury trials overnight would tax an already strained system beyond functionality.
Anyway, I don't have the time to read everybody's posts, but there was one from Comrade Mean DM that looked like I totally agreed with it.
If it's the same one I was head-nodding to then *goblin fist-bump*