How little evidence should be required to convict someone of rape?

Arcade22

Philosopher
Arcade22
Joined
Aug 8, 2007
Messages
7,733
Location
Sweden
Rape and other sex crimes are often hard to prove in court because they have a tendency to happen in private without direct independent eye witnesses. This is especially the case regarding alleged sex crimes where the question isn't whether or not there were sexual acts but rather whether or not it was consensual or not.

Unless someone happened to film the sex act(s) or there's another independent witness it's very likely that words will stand against words. For example, the plaintiff could claim that she explicitly told him that he was supposed to wear a condom but at some point pulled it off and ejaculated inside her. By contrast could obviously deny that she made any such demand at all. In fact i read a couple of months ago about a case where some teenager wasn't prosecuted for rape because they happened to film it.

If such a situation occurs, and it's not uncommon that they do, the critical question becomes: should people be convicted even without any independent evidence pointing towards guilt? If the judge(s) or jury find the plaintiffs story believable should they convict the alleged perpetrator?

Here's a real example of one of these types of cases:

The then 17-year-old girl had in 2011 been on a school trip on a cruise ferry between Gothenburg and Denmark, where she had begun talking with the 36-year-old man.

The girl later said that the man had raped her on one of the ferry's deck by ripping her off pantyhose and panties and by bringing up his hand in her groin. He would then have taken her panties 'as a memory".

The man denied the charges and claimed that the girl had consented to what happened - that they had been "petting" and that he had gotten her panties as a souvenir because he was interested in such things.

The man was charged, however, at the Gothenburg District Court for the rape.

The district court found that the forensic evidence was lacking but that the girl's story received some support from witness information about how the girl behaved after the event.

The District Court also wrote in its reasoning:

"The question is whether a seventeen year old woman such as MÄ (girl) really made up a story and maintained it during the rather lengthy process that a criminal investigation nonetheless entails. To this should be added the court proceedings. The court finds it extremely difficult to believe that this may be the case, at least in MÄ's situation where MÄ as according to information already was a somewhat fragile person with a view to relapse of depression. "

The district court continued:

"Ultimately remarkable are also claims that the briefs would voluntarily have surrendered this seventeen-year-old woman to a man who just happens to have a fetishistic preferences specifically towards women's underwear."
Click to expand...

link

He was after four years ultimately acquitted in the same court of appeal that originally convicted him and sentenced him to two years in prison. From their final judgement you can read:

A police report was made on 13 May 2011, that is three days after the incident would have taken place. Despite this there was no crime scene investigation on the boat to secure any traces and check the aggrieved party's statement.

The surveillance film from the boat was not requested. The first hearing of the injured party was held a month later, on June 13, 2011. The possibility to observe any injuries on her body had by this time fallen considerably.

Any medical examination was never done despite the plaintiff's statements that she had received injuries in the groin and bled for several days after the event. The clothing that the victim had been wearing during the trip were never taken to look for traces of blood.

At the first hearing of the injured party she was allowed to read out the notes she had written down on her computer about the incident. These notes were recorded by the police. No lawful hearing was thus not held in the initial stage.

....

Word stands against word regarding what exactly took place between the parties and if it was voluntary on the plaintiff's side. Direct witness observations and forensic evidence is lacking. Crucial to the issue of responsibility is therefore the credibility which can be attached to the plaintiff and defendants statements.
Click to expand...

My own opinion is that the absence of independent forensic evidence or eye witness testimony should not dramatically increase the importance of the plaintiffs and defendants statements and claims. If anything it decreases their value heavily since one isn't able to corroborate them. Coupled with the fact that the police investigation was incredibly lackluster and underwhelming he should of course not be convicted.

Strangely two courts found him guilty which at least to me implies that the judges are far too willing to believe the plaintiff's allegations. Moreover i find it detestable that the judges engage in baseless speculation regarding how "incredible" the claim that a "17 year old woman would have voluntarily given away her underwear".
 
If there is no forensic evidence, then it is a she-said-he-said story. As such, as sad is it may appear that justice seem not to be served, it should IMO always favor for the defendant. Naturally it is a question of your own feeling, is it better to release 9 guilty to protect the one innocent or to condemn the 1 innocent as to make sure the 9 guilty get in prison too ? As you might guess I am in favor of the first.
 
Arcade22 said:
.....
Strangely two courts found him guilty which at least to me implies that the judges are far too willing to believe the plaintiff's allegations. Moreover i find it detestable that the judges engage in baseless speculation regarding how "incredible" the claim that a "17 year old woman would have voluntarily given away her underwear".
Click to expand...

The fact that the police did a sloppy investigation weighs in the defendant's favor. But many cases ultimately come down to who tells the more believable story; that is, whose story is more consistent with what we generally know about how people behave in the world. If a guy gets punched out in a bar and points to someone else as his attacker, the accused might say "It wasn't me, you've got the wrong guy," or he might say "He attacked first, I was defending myself," or he might even say "There was never an attack. This is an insurance scam." Only one can be telling the truth. A oral agreement comes down to two parties' claims: "He said he'd paint my house for $500!"; "No, I said it would cost $500 per day and it would take two weeks!" Etc.

In this case, I would want to know whether the man and girl had any prior relationship as relatives, teacher-student, celebrity-fan etc. I would want to know if the man had a criminal record or if the girl had a history of making false accusations. But other things being equal, I would say it's inherently implausible for a teenage girl on a school trip -- surrounded by her friends and teachers -- to engage in "petting" with a 36-year-old stranger and allow him to take her underwear. "She really wanted it" is the first defense of a rapist, and it's almost always a lie. The judges -- who assessed the testimony and demeanor of both parties -- sound like they did the right thing.

I also note that in many states any sexual contact between an adult and a minor -- even consensual -- is a serious crime by itself. What the guy confessed to would be enough to lock him up.
 
Last edited:
You would think police would do a better job of gathering physical evidence. Regardless of what is later claimed, this is vital.

Of course, Detroit has just finished lab-testing 11,000 old, untested rape kits sitting in a warehouse. Nobody loses their job much less goes to jail over this.
 
Bob001 said:
The fact that the police did a sloppy investigation weighs in the defendant's favor. But many cases ultimately come down to who tells the more believable story; that is, whose story is more consistent with what we generally know about how people behave in the world. If a guy gets punched out in a bar and points to someone else as his attacker, the accused might say "It wasn't me, you've got the wrong guy," or he might say "He attacked first, I was defending myself," or he might even say "There was never an attack. This is an insurance scam." Only one can be telling the truth. A oral agreement comes down to two parties' claims: "He said he'd paint my house for $500!"; "No, I said it would cost $500 per day and it would take two weeks!" Etc.

In this case, I would want to know whether the man and girl had any prior relationship as relatives, teacher-student, celebrity-fan etc. I would want to know if the man had a criminal record or if the girl had a history of making false accusations. But other things being equal, I would say it's inherently implausible for a teenage girl on a school trip -- surrounded by her friends and teachers -- to engage in "petting" with a 36-year-old stranger and allow him to take her underwear. "She really wanted it" is the first defense of a rapist, and it's almost always a lie. The judges -- who assessed the testimony and demeanor of both parties -- sound like they did the right thing.

I also note that in many states any sexual contact between an adult and a minor -- even consensual -- is a serious crime by itself. What the guy confessed to would be enough to lock him up.
Click to expand...

That is where I disagree. People went in prison for naught over a story, life were ruined over a believable story, at least in the judge eye. Remember also the satanic preschool ? We laugh at it but it was believable to the people there. The point is , leaving it to the story the more believable opens you to believe the better liar. And yes that better liar CAN be a young woman , or even an underage child, pretending to be raped.

That is why if there is no physical evidence, no 3rd party witness, then it should be thrown out.
 
Aepervius said:
That is where I disagree. People went in prison for naught over a story, life were ruined over a believable story, at least in the judge eye. Remember also the satanic preschool ? We laugh at it but it was believable to the people there. The point is , leaving it to the story the more believable opens you to believe the better liar. And yes that better liar CAN be a young woman , or even an underage child, pretending to be raped.

That is why if there is no physical evidence, no 3rd party witness, then it should be thrown out.
Click to expand...

So if a rapist is clever enough to wear gloves and a condom and grab a woman alone, he gets a free pass? Not many people would agree. And comparing a rape -- something that happens thousands of times a day -- to impossible allegations about a satanic cult doesn't help your argument. Sure, when there is an accusation of rape, there are questions that need to be answered: Did sex occur? Did the victim identify the right person? And was there consent? There is no physical evidence that would prove her -- or his -- state of mind, unless you're one of those Neanderthals that think a woman couldn't have been raped unless she was also beaten half to death.

I repeat, any number of crimes and civil disputes ultimately come down one person's word against another's, and the legal system must -- and does -- adjudicate them. The fact that some crimes involve sex doesn't change the principle.
 
Last edited:
Bob001 said:
So if a rapist is clever enough to wear gloves and a condom and grab a woman alone, he gets a free pass? Not many people would agree. And comparing a rape -- something that happens thousands of times a day -- to impossible allegations about a satanic cult doesn't help your argument. Sure, when there is an accusation of rape, there are questions that need to be answered: Did sex occur? Did the victim identify the right person? And was there consent? There is no physical evidence that would prove her -- or his -- state of mind, unless you're one of those Neanderthals that think a woman couldn't have been raped unless she was also beaten half to death.

I repeat, any number of crimes and civil disputes ultimately come down one person's word against another's, and the legal system must -- and does -- adjudicate them. The fact that some crimes involve sex doesn't change the principle.
Click to expand...
What do you think of this case for evidence or lack of it?

Muliaina, 35, was accused of touching a 19-year-old woman "on he bottom over her trousers" on a busy nightclub nightclub dance floor.

It was alleged the incident took place in the Welsh capital of Cardiff on March 7, hours after Muliaina played for Irish side Connacht in an away game against the Cardiff Blues.

The fullback was arrested after the final whistle of his team's European Challenge Cup quarter-final defeat at Gloucester in April.

Still in his team tracksuit, he was captured by TV cameras as he was led away to a police van.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11531759
 
Samson said:
What do you think of this case for evidence or lack of it?

Muliaina, 35, was accused of touching a 19-year-old woman "on he bottom over her trousers" on a busy nightclub nightclub dance floor.

It was alleged the incident took place in the Welsh capital of Cardiff on March 7, hours after Muliaina played for Irish side Connacht in an away game against the Cardiff Blues.

The fullback was arrested after the final whistle of his team's European Challenge Cup quarter-final defeat at Gloucester in April.

Still in his team tracksuit, he was captured by TV cameras as he was led away to a police van.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11531759
Click to expand...

You didn't include the part that said the charges were thrown out for lack of evidence. It's not clear from the story whether the accusation is that he brushed against her on the dance floor, or swatted her butt as she passed by the bar, or what. The fact that he's a celebrity might also be a factor. But whatever happened, it's clear that it was momentary and non-harmful and occurred in front of what must have been numerous witnesses. It doesn't sound to me like the guy should even have been arrested, at least not on the spot. I'm not sure how you think that relates to the rape case.
 
Last edited:
Bob001 said:
You didn't include the part that said the charges were thrown out for lack of evidence. It's not clear from the story whether the accusation is that he brushed against her on the dance floor, or swatted her butt as she passed by the bar, or what. The fact that he's a celebrity might also be a factor. But whatever happened, it's clear that it was momentary and non-harmful and occurred in front of what must have been numerous witnesses. It doesn't sound to me like the guy should even have been arrested, at least not on the spot. I'm not sure how you think that relates to the rape case.
Click to expand...
Oh I don't, but I think it falls squarely inside the OP issue.
In general I see scores of prosecutions attempted here that defy common sense. Police are in the prosecutions business, the system is a catastrophe for individuals. I hoped the Welsh had more brains.
 
Bob001 said:
So if a rapist is clever enough to wear gloves and a condom and grab a woman alone, he gets a free pass? Not many people would agree. And comparing a rape -- something that happens thousands of times a day -- to impossible allegations about a satanic cult doesn't help your argument. Sure, when there is an accusation of rape, there are questions that need to be answered: Did sex occur? Did the victim identify the right person? And was there consent? There is no physical evidence that would prove her -- or his -- state of mind, unless you're one of those Neanderthals that think a woman couldn't have been raped unless she was also beaten half to death.

I repeat, any number of crimes and civil disputes ultimately come down one person's word against another's, and the legal system must -- and does -- adjudicate them. The fact that some crimes involve sex doesn't change the principle.
Click to expand...
Exactly how are allegations about a satanic cult impossible?

There is nothing that would prevent people from forming a satanic cult.
There is nothing that would prevent allegations of participation in a satanic cult.
 
The Greater Fool said:
Exactly how are allegations about a satanic cult impossible?

There is nothing that would prevent people from forming a satanic cult.
There is nothing that would prevent allegations of participation in a satanic cult.
Click to expand...


In the McMartin preschool case, which I assume was the reference, children claimed (or were persuaded to claim) that:
"they saw witches fly, traveled in a hot-air balloon, and were taken through underground tunnels.[4] When shown a series of photographs by Danny Davis (the McMartins' lawyer), one child identified actor Chuck Norris as one of the abusers.[20]" .... There were claims of orgies at car washes and airports, and of children being flushed down toilets to secret rooms where they would be abused, then cleaned up and presented back to their parents. ...."
Click to expand...

You know, impossible stuff.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial
 
Last edited:
Bob001 said:
In the McMartin preschool case, which I assume was the reference, children claimed (or were persuaded to claim) that:


You know, impossible stuff.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial
Click to expand...
The impossible aspects were added by a (clinically) mentally ill person. These were also small kids that could be fooled or imaginative. The prosecution (and pretty much everyone else) never took the witches flying as real.

Also, at the time Satanic Ritual Abuse was ramping up, and there were many allegations outside of McMartin, so as a general statement it's not impossible.
 
Bob001 said:
I also note that in many states any sexual contact between an adult and a minor -- even consensual -- is a serious crime by itself. What the guy confessed to would be enough to lock him up.
Click to expand...
This wasn't any of your states. This happened in Denmark, where the age of consent is 15. Unless the guy was one of her teachers, consensual sex with her was no crime.
 
Bob001 said:
But other things being equal, I would say it's inherently implausible for a teenage girl on a school trip -- surrounded by her friends and teachers -- to engage in "petting" with a 36-year-old stranger and allow him to take her underwear.
Click to expand...

So on what basis do you feel justified making that claim? Are you, just like the judges in this case, engaging in speculation without any facts to back your opinions up?

I also note that in many states any sexual contact between an adult and a minor -- even consensual -- is a serious crime by itself. What the guy confessed to would be enough to lock him up.
Click to expand...

So what? Having sex outside of marriage is also illegal and a serious crime in many countries. Should i take that into account as well?
 
Arcade22 said:
So on what basis do you feel justified making that claim? Are you, just like the judges in this case, engaging in speculation without any facts to back your opinions up?
....
Click to expand...

Both parties agree that sexual activity occurred. It's not a case of mistaken identity or manufactured accusation. He claims that it was consensual, she says it wasn't. Why do you think his claim outweighs hers? She is the person who decides whether or not consent was given. How is she supposed to prove that she didn't consent? What physical evidence do you think would support her? If a teenage girl says "I did not consent to have sex with a 36-year-old stranger on a school trip with my friends and teachers," that is a compelling fact. What is your basis for doubting her?
 
The Greater Fool said:
The impossible aspects were added by a (clinically) mentally ill person. These were also small kids that could be fooled or imaginative. The prosecution (and pretty much everyone else) never took the witches flying as real.

Also, at the time Satanic Ritual Abuse hysteria [ftfy] was ramping up, and there were many allegations outside of McMartin, so as a general statement it's not impossible.
Click to expand...

There was and is plenty of child abuse in the world, but I don't think there was any evidence, let alone proof, that supported any of those "satanic cult" allegations, and many were as wildly off the wall (kids being fed to sharks, babies being sacrificed on altars) as in the McMartin case.
 
Bob001 said:
Both parties agree that sexual activity occurred. It's not a case of mistaken identity or manufactured accusation. He claims that it was consensual, she says it wasn't. Why do you think his claim outweighs hers? She is the person who decides whether or not consent was given. How is she supposed to prove that she didn't consent? What physical evidence do you think would support her? If a teenage girl says "I did not consent to have sex with a 36-year-old stranger on a school trip with my friends and teachers," that is a compelling fact. What is your basis for doubting her?
Click to expand...

I don't. I hold her claim as being as plausible and 'weighted' as his. No more, no less. With two equally weighted claims (neither of which, in spite of your penultimate sentence claim, can be claimed, without further evidence, to be a fact, let alone a compelling one), I prefer to bias the system toward non-conviction.

Would you prefer to let 100 innocent men be convicted to ensure every actual criminal is convicted, or to let 100 criminals go free to ensure no innocents are convicted? This society has chosen that convicting an innocent is more wrong than freeing a criminal.
 
Bob001 said:
He claims that it was consensual, she says it wasn't. Why do you think his claim outweighs hers?
Click to expand...

I don't think "his claim outweighs hers". I find both of them equally as believable. Which is where we get to the important part: his guilt needs to be established beyond reasonable doubt.

She is the person who decides whether or not consent was given.
Click to expand...

No, it's the judges that get to decide that.

How is she supposed to prove that she didn't consent? What physical evidence do you think would support her?
Click to expand...

Her (allegedly) bloody clothes for one thing. She Could have gotten a medical examination to establish if there were any wounds, bruises or something of that nature. In fact she claimed that she "received injuries in the genital area and bled for several days after the incident" and despite this very specific statement no physical examination of any kind was done at all.

If a teenage girl says "I did not consent to have sex with a 36-year-old stranger on a school trip with my friends and teachers," that is a compelling fact.
Click to expand...

So the mere fact that she alleges that she was raped is by itself evidence that she was raped? Am i getting this right?

What is your basis for doubting her?
Click to expand...

You got it backwards. I don't need a good reason to doubt her, what i need is a good reason to believe her and her claim that she was raped or otherwise sexually abused. Preferably a better reason than "a teenage girl wouldn't consent to that and then lie about it".
 
Last edited:
GodMark2 said:
Would you prefer to let 100 innocent men be convicted to ensure every actual criminal is convicted, or to let 100 criminals go free to ensure no innocents are convicted?
Click to expand...

I guess we should err on the side of caution and assume that all claims of rape, sexual abuse and such are all true unless compelling evidence tells us otherwise.

Even if they are innocent of the allegations and become subject to a miscarriage of justice it still sends the message that rape and other crimes aren't tolerated.
 
Arcade22 said:
I guess we should err on the side of caution and assume that all claims of rape, sexual abuse and such are all true unless compelling evidence tells us otherwise.

Even if they are innocent of the allegations and become subject to a miscarriage of justice it still sends the message that rape and other crimes aren't tolerated.
Click to expand...

So if I understand you correctly... you feel it's OK that you should go to prison for years and serve as a poster child for why men shouldn't rape women merely because some female you managed to piss off decided to accuse you of raping her? Do I have this correct?
 
TruthCalls said:
So if I understand you correctly... you feel it's OK that you should go to prison for years and serve as a poster child for why men shouldn't rape women merely because some female you managed to piss off decided to accuse you of raping her? Do I have this correct?
Click to expand...

I think he was being sarcastic. Perhaps if you followed the conversation.
 
Bob001 said:
There was and is plenty of child abuse in the world, but I don't think there was any evidence, let alone proof, that supported any of those "satanic cult" allegations, and many were as wildly off the wall (kids being fed to sharks, babies being sacrificed on altars) as in the McMartin case.
Click to expand...
So... not impossible, just unlikely.
 
Belz... said:
I think he was being sarcastic. Perhaps if you followed the conversation.
Click to expand...

Well, I was following the conversation, but failed to pick up on the sarcasm. I suspect it's due to the fact that I actually knew someone who was prosecuted solely on the basis of accusations. Sadly, in many cases this IS how the system works. My apologies to Arcade22 - their position was clearly made in the previous post but I didn't connect the two.
 
if she consented to the touching
but the guy was too ruff/clumsy
and she got hurt and bled
so was mad at the guy
so we have revenge report of rape
that is some what logical from her point of view

personally I do not feel fingers are = rape
but assault sure
and 2 years is about fair IF no consent
 
nota said:
if she consented to the touching
but the guy was too ruff/clumsy
and she got hurt and bled
so was mad at the guy
so we have revenge report of rape
that is some what logical from her point of view
Click to expand...

Well she didn't spontaneously go the police to report the alleged crime by herself rather she was more or less pressured into reporting it to the police by the school principal, counselor and her friends.

It's thus conceivable that, although she wasn't raped or sexually abused, was subject to something that she felt was shameful or otherwise felt hurt by it. Quite possibly peer pressure and a desire to avoid arguing with her friends made her say that it was rape.

What's so interesting is that the school counselor, although she wasn't certain that she saw bruises or something like that, told her that she should go to a hospital and have her wounds assessed and documented but the plaintiff for some reason didn't want to do that despite claiming at a later date that she was so wounded that she bled for days.

Another very possible scenario is that she felt that pressured into consenting and then thinking that would've made it rape. However, according to Swedish merely bothering or pressuring someone into having sex isn't criminal. One has to use violence, force, threats or otherwise exploit that the plaintiff is unable say no due to fear or lack of consciousness for example. Thus it's not rape If ones boyfriend keeps nagging for sex and one relents.

Of course there's a sliding scale between explicitly threatening violence and merely being pushy and persistent but there must at least be some good reason for them feeling that they can't say no.

personally I do not feel fingers are = rape
but assault sure
and 2 years is about fair IF no consent
Click to expand...

That's a interesting point that i didn't elaborate on. Sweden has a quite broad legal definition of rape where any non-consensual vaginal penetration falls under the crime label of rape rather than the crime of "sexual force".

The paragraphs that are most important concerning the crime of rape are these two:

1§ Anyone who by assault or otherwise through violence or by threat of carrying out a criminal act forces a person into having sexual intercourse, or to carry out or endure a sexual act which by the severity of the violation is comparable to sexual intercourse, shall be sentenced for rape to imprisonment for at least two and a maximum of six years.

The same applies to a person who performs sexual intercourse, or a sexual act which according to the first paragraph is equivalent to sexual intercourse, by improperly exploiting that the person is unconsciousness, asleep, serious fear, intoxicated or under other drug influences, illness, injury, mental disorder or otherwise considering the circumstances are in a particularly vulnerable situation.
Click to expand...

In Swedish law sexual intercourse has the restrictive meaning of penile-vaginal penetration and acts that are treated as equivalent to it include not only oral and anal sex but also penetrating a woman's vagina with ones fingers. For example, when a father supposedly did a "virginty check" by penetrating his daughters vagina with his finger was determined to be guilty of "child rape" version of the rape crime rather than the less serious "sexual abuse" crime.
 
You need to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that a rape, which is defined (in Scotland) as penetration without consent has taken place. The same standard as with any other crime. I see no reason to change the standard to try and increase convictions.
 
Aepervius said:
If there is no forensic evidence, then it is a she-said-he-said story.
Click to expand...
It is difficult to imagine what forensic evidence would prove beyond any doubt that sex was non-consensual. CCTV showing a man chasing and then dragging away a fleeing woman would suffice. But such evidence is practically never available. Physical signs of a violent struggle? They are fakeable, a woman who wants to nail down someone whom she hates, would be capable of fabricating such evidence upon her own body, after having had an intercourse with the target person. Signs of violence do not directly prove where and when and how they were generated. Then there is the sado-masochist scene too, where some forms of violence are part of the partying.

Aepervius said:
it is a question of your own feeling, is it better to release 9 guilty to protect the one innocent or to condemn the 1 innocent as to make sure the 9 guilty get in prison too ?
Click to expand...
My feeling is that the society condemns 5 innocent out of 100. Obviously we cannot stop convicting any rape case where no CCTV recording exists of the suspect chasing the victim through a public park. A safe feeling of impunity would encourage rapists to expand their activities. But I want to improve the success rate of court cases, I want less than 5 innocent out of 100 into prison. The only way to improve the statistics would be to increase passive collection of evidence, more CCTVs, and maybe some legal / technical arrangement by which two persons can confirm having agreed to sex with each other, before they do it. Not a sexy thought, but it would be one more piece of hard evidence, one more circumstance where rape cannot possibly be charged. (Unless sex was anal, for example, but the agreement was not for anal sex.)
 
Whatever happened generally happened in privacy, behind closed doors, and is an activity that is more often consensual, which makes it difficult.

For instance, if I call the police about someone I just met and invited in for a drink punched me and stole my wallet, and I have bruises and they have my missing wallet, their explanation that the behaviour was consensual (or they had a reasonable mistaken belief it was consensual) is not credible. They have my wallet. Or even if they just took the cash, assuming I withdrew it recently there will be records showing I had cash and what records do they have how they got it? Etc.

But if someone says the person they invited in for a drink (let's make it non-intercourse) kissed and fondled them against their will, there's no physical evidence, it's pure credibility. If there was intercourse and there is physical evidence, if there were no physical violence other than the non-consensual intercourse itself, there's no difference between the evidence of sexual assault or just sex. And even credibility is a problem if drinking is involved, let's say the complainant genuinely believes they didn't consent and were obviously too drunk to consent anyway, but the accused who was also drinking clearly heard her say and demonstrate she wanted sex and didn't think she was any drunker than he was. The complainant is credible and telling what she believes to be the truth, but the accused should not be convicted on those facts (if you think any alcohol = no consent, then the complainant has also committed sexual assault by having sex with the accused, since he had alcohol also...).

So the nature of the crime means, all gender bias or poor investigation aside, it will often be more difficult to get a conviction. And I think that that's better than the alternative, making it too easy to get a conviction, lowering the burden of proof for sexual assault but not all other crimes (which is effectively what a number of U.S. colleges have done, as well as having a sexist double standard re consent and alcohol).
 
Dare we even consider the situation on U.S. college campuses in regards to sex crimes, and how university administrations, rather than law enforcement, are investigating and adjudicating the alleged crimes?
 
Corsair 115 said:
Dare we even consider the situation on U.S. college campuses in regards to sex crimes, and how university administrations, rather than law enforcement, are investigating and adjudicating the alleged crimes?
Click to expand...

I heard some guy was found guilty (by the University quasi investigation) subsequently expelled from the Uni despite having text messages from his accuser proving it was consensual.

That's insane
 
Arcade22 said:
...
So the mere fact that she alleges that she was raped is by itself evidence that she was raped? Am i getting this right?...
Click to expand...

Absolutely! It's direct testimony from a witness--the witness just happens to be the alleged victim as well. Credibility then becomes a huge issue, as it should be. You have to examine all the facts and circumstances, not just whether the complainant had physical signs of rape. It is troubling to see all the responses here which seem to imply that absent a videotape of a violent rape, the accused goes free.
In my public defender days, I represented a lot of accused rapists. Sorry, no stats, but my impression based on my experience in dealing with accusers and the accused is that is very rare for a woman to make up a rape claim. Not completely unheard of--but rare! Some of the bizarre statements in this thread are a clue why so many rapes go unreported. It reminds me of one alleged rapist who I represented--his friends and relatives came to me and told me "this guy was a stud, he could get any girl he wanted--why on earth would he rape this girl?" I heard that sort of ignorance routinely.
 
Essexman said:
I heard some guy was found guilty (by the University quasi investigation) subsequently expelled from the Uni despite having text messages from his accuser proving it was consensual.

That's insane
Click to expand...
How about the guy who was found innocent by the university, followed by a police investigation which also came up empty, which was then followed by the accuser turning the whole thing into an art project?
 
stanfr said:
In my public defender days, I represented a lot of accused rapists. Sorry, no stats, but my impression based on my experience in dealing with accusers and the accused is that is very rare for a woman to make up a rape claim...
Click to expand...

That's interesting and I'd be interested in your take on a case in New York that continues to sadden me.

A woman reported she'd been raped by a trucker on a highway. She'd had a flat tire on her way to work and was struggling to figure out how to use the jack when an eighteen-wheeler pulled onto the shoulder. The trucker changed the tire for her. According to her account, afterwards he forced her into the truck cab with the words, "I'm going to teach you to show some appreciation for a favor," and proceeded to rape her. She got the plate number and the trucker was arrested and stood trial.

In court the trucker pleaded not guilty. He admitted they had sex but insisted it was consensual. He said the woman became very angry when she indicated she wanted to continue seeing him (the trucker) and he told her that wouldn't be possible. The jury believed the trucker and he was acquitted. After the trial one of the reporters got an interview with two of the jurors. When he told them the trucker had been arrested on the same charge in the exact same circumstances in a Midwestern state one year previously the jurors were stunned. In that case, when the trucker pleaded not guilty, the victim decided to drop the charges rather than have to endure a trial. Both said knowing that they never would have believed the trucker's story.

A relative of mine who has been a New York City police detective for over thirty years told me, "The guy's probably sociopathic. They are very convincing liars."
 
With 16 years experience in a DA's Office not sure why Sexual Assault cases should be any different than any other crime: testimony alone can be enough to convict. A jury (not Judge) decides credibility at trial and yes, they (Juries) hold it against defendants who decide not to testify even when given specific instructions by the court. In my neck o' the woods, our public still thinks of Rape as a stranger jumping out of the bushes. We almost always get the drop-down charge of Sexual Assault (sex without consent) even when force or threat of force is shown. Still decent guidelines even for defendants without much of a criminal history. Our office has an approval policy so police cannot even file a Rape (or other felony Sexual Assault charge) without an ADA signing-off. We turn away many more than we prosecute but the ones we do charge are solid cases due to working in conjunction with police during the investigation.
 
newyorkguy said:
That's interesting and I'd be interested in your take on a case in New York that continues to sadden me.

A woman reported she'd been raped by a trucker on a highway. She'd had a flat tire on her way to work and was struggling to figure out how to use the jack when an eighteen-wheeler pulled onto the shoulder. The trucker changed the tire for her. According to her account, afterwards he forced her into the truck cab with the words, "I'm going to teach you to show some appreciation for a favor," and proceeded to rape her. She got the plate number and the trucker was arrested and stood trial.

In court the trucker pleaded not guilty. He admitted they had sex but insisted it was consensual. He said the woman became very angry when she indicated she wanted to continue seeing him (the trucker) and he told her that wouldn't be possible. The jury believed the trucker and he was acquitted. After the trial one of the reporters got an interview with two of the jurors. When he told them the trucker had been arrested on the same charge in the exact same circumstances in a Midwestern state one year previously the jurors were stunned. In that case, when the trucker pleaded not guilty, the victim decided to drop the charges rather than have to endure a trial. Both said knowing that they never would have believed the trucker's story.

A relative of mine who has been a New York City police detective for over thirty years told me, "The guy's probably sociopathic. They are very convincing liars."
Click to expand...

And THIS is why women hesitate to report rape. Against Our Will was published 40 years ago and people still blame the victim and believe these tried-and-true stories by the attackers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom