|
DeusExMachinima posted:Stop pretending to be shocked in place of making an actual argument. Show your work, show me the results. How many more years of innocent until proven guilty for rape charges will we need until rapists are rarely able to re-offend? How many rapes is your way going to directly prevent? No, what you are saying is outrageous enough that shock and incredulity seem like a totally appropriate response. You want to strip every last American citizen of fundamental rights rather than accepting the reality that many crimes go unpunished. You want us to live in a society where citizens can be totally stripped of liberty for the failure to prove a negative. It truly is an appalling proposition.
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 18:46 |
|
|
Talmonis posted:I can't think of a worse moodkiller. That's only slightly worse than "Which sexual activities, if any, do you affirmatively agree to engage in with me this evening? Please blow in this breathalyzer before answering." e: sometimes I forget the breathalyzer and I have to administer roadside sobriety tests
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:There was literally a case in the UK where a Saudi prince was accused of rape and he used the defence of "I was walking, tripped and fell dick first in her" and he got acquitted. I just googled that and apparently the jury acquitted after deliberating for only 30 minutes. That seems really insane. Like there had to be massive jury bribery going unless the girl was really, incredibly bad on the stand or there was some other fatal flaw in the prosecution's case.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:You fix them by following the Constitution of the United States. The laws now protect perpetrators, and the Constitutional history of America seems to indicate we should be protecting the victims. What's all this now
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 00:05
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:I'm to understand there is a crisis according to the OP, and in times of crisis, the nation should respond. Can you help us out as far as what you're talking about when you say the present laws protect perpetrators and need to be changed in some way, and the Constitution is implicated somehow as a protection for the accuser instead of the accused?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:You hear one exception for something that will cause mistakes more rarely than your vaunted system of jury convictions does (check rates of convictions being overturned vs. false rape charges and get back to me). Your response is to jump to RIGHTS IN COURT GONE FOREVER JUST GONE. When people discuss ways to regulate gun violence do you immediately ask when Obama's taking all the guns? Your logic applies equally to every crime, not just rape. Also, the rate of convictions being overturned is pretty meaningless in a system that gives incredible deference to the results at the trial level. I don't know if you realize this, but by the time a case gets to the appeals stage the facts are no longer up for discussion. With very few exceptions, appeals courts are only looking to see if the law was applied correctly, not if the correct conclusion was reached regarding the facts. And yes, I will gladly go on the record saying I would rather see 100 rapists put back on the street than see one person wrongly convicted of rape. See also: every other crime. I would rather see 100 murderers go free than see one person wrongly convicted of murder. So if you want to call me soft on crime go for it, Dirty Harry.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:If that is the level of consent you have received why would you bother? Just go rub one out in the sink, Jesus Christ. I mostly agree with the "why even bother" sentiment, but capitulating to sex for the sake of gratifying one's partner as part of the overall give and take in a relationship is hardly the same thing as marital rape. It doesn't seem all that different from giving your SO a massage when you'd rather be doing something else, but they asked and you care about them and it's a relatively simple thing that you can do to make them feel loved and appreciated.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:It cannot be completely off the spectrum of sexual assault in all cases because it is on the spectrum of coercion. The only way to avoid engaging in coercion is by securing not grudging consent, but enthusiastic consent. Yeah, but again, we're talking about this in the context of the overall give and take in a serious, long term relationship. A big part of being life partners with someone is doing things for them when you don't especially feel like it, because you love them and you value their happiness and from time to time you put their needs and desires above your own. And that's sustainable so long as they do the same thing for you. But it doesn't really count if you do it in a way that comes across as "grudging." The whole point is that you muster the enthusiasm, and when you can't do that, you do your best to fake it. If you're going to dinner with your SO's parents, it doesn't matter that you had a lovely day and you have a headache. You get ready and you go to that dinner and while you're there you smile and listen politely and do your best to be charming even if all you want in the world is to be at home in your PJs. If it's your SO's turn to pick the movie, you watch the movie they want to watch and you don't pout about it. If your SO needs to vent about their day, you find the will to show interest even if you have other poo poo on your mind and you're not exactly dying to know what that bitchy co-worker said today. And if someone occasionally puts on their game face and shows their partner some physical affection even though they're not really in the mood, I think we should be praising that person, not condemning their partner. There is a vast, yawning gulf between that and saying a woman can't be raped by her husband. Thermos H Christ fucked around with this message at 20:01 on Mar 4, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:No, I am arguing that the idea that we cannot possibly conscience the idea that one person might be wrongfully convicted of a crime and that if such a thing were to occur it would be the ultimate sin, and that any sacrifice is worth avoiding that, is a load of bollocks. Less than 15? If 1 in 15 people convicted and imprisoned for rape are innocent, you're down with that? That is seriously hosed up.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
OwlFancier, why bother with burden of proof and due process for rape cases at all? How about if someone accuses you of rape you go straight to prison? After all, most of the time an accuser is telling the truth in these cases. We'd put a lot more guilty people behind bars for rape, that's for sure. A lot more innocent people, too, but why should that be a problem so long as we lock up more guilty people than innocent ones? I'm sure that if the government came along and robbed you of your freedom, years of your life, your career, your family, your reputation, etc., all over a crime you didn't commit, you'd just accept it as the cost of doing business. I mean we've got to get those guilty people, after all.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I believe rape is grossly underreported, in many cases because it cannot be successfully prosecuted and because of perceived or actual police indifference to the crime, as well as the social stigma attached to being a victim of it, and a lack of support for victims immediately following the crime. Hey look, actual proposals for more effectively investigating and prosecuting crimes that don't require us to throw out the bill of rights!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Because that would result in an unsustainable prison population. Wow. That's your problem with locking up tons of innocent people - we won't have enough prison capacity to hold them all. Amazing. quote:If you had suggested giving more weight to multiple, seemingly independent accusations, I would agree with that. I didn't suggest that because we already have that. Multiple, seemingly independent witnesses who are attesting to a pattern of behavior from a defendant will obviously be seen as stronger proof than a single uncorroborated witness.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Actually I was meaning giving more weight than we currently do. Oh, ok, so we're just skipping those pesky due process, speedy and public trial, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, right to confront your accuser types of things. Brilliant. Have you considered a career as a costumed vigilante?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:In the unlikely event that you manage to annoy a cabal of illuminati feminists and they conspire to get the police to track you, well, that's a shame. If you have multiple independent witnesses attesting that someone is a rapist, you put those witnesses on the stand and convict them at trial. The whole problem is that, given the nature of rape as a crime, there usually are not multiple witnesses around who can corroborate or contradict the allegations. When the only direct evidence is the testimony of two people and their stories are contradictory, it is hard for that to rise to the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt without some additional evidence to support or contradict one of those stories.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:The hell it does. Well, you can call anything rape if you want to. But for it to be prosecuted as a crime it sure as hell does need a clear legal definition that will apply in every case.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Hence why I would suggest that if multiple people accuse you of rape, that should make you under suspicion and it seems quite reasonable that you should have to wear a tag to aid in determining the veracity of any future accusations. Luckily, we already have this ability. If there are multiple witnesses accusing someone of rape that's more than enough to arrest them and indict them, and they could be put on a monitor as a condition of bail while they await trial. And even if the monitor reveals nothing there's still plenty evidence there to get a conviction. So your proposed change to the law wouldn't allow law enforcement to take more decisive action in the investigation and prosecution of a person accused of rape by multiple independent witnesses, and it wouldn't apply at all in the cases where there is just one accuser. What is the point?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 18:46 |
|
|
Right, but the topic of this thread is how to address the problem via the legal system. So pointing out that someone's proposed definition is too broad or nebulous to be applied in the legal context is on topic.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 21:45
|
|