Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JustJess
Precisely.
AV, I think you might be thinking a little naively. When they say the attackers present false evidence, that seems linked to perjury, not he said/she said. It's a problem when they put the victim on trial - yes, it must be established that her story is credible and that there is some kind of evidence to support it, but there is always a bit of physical evidence - if it were being gathered correctly, that is. There is trauma to the woman's body if she is taken forcibly. It'd be pretty difficult to fake that.
|
Indeed I am taking it naively, delibrately so, however a lot of cases (as Mal said, buyers remorse, the whole way too drunk on both sides etc) it is literally he said she said, when you have forced entry (doesn't always imply rape, but majority probably is) then you have something more to go on however who said that the woman remembered the night correctly and the man is lying (yeah he probably is to cover up his guilt if guilty however its not really his job to prove himself innocent but the prosecuters to prove him guilty)? Perjury probably does occur a lot however without sufficient evidence to convict someone (DNA etc do not prove sex was non-consensual merely that it occured) then you have to aquit.
Quote:
|
Is a person likely to make poor choices when drunk? Of course, that's half the reason people drink. But when they're too drunk to stand or talk coherently, yes, they're an idiot, but they are not able to consent to anything. (I don't know the particulars of the case quoted, but am suggesting circumstances instead.)
|
Indeed, however if someone "consents" to something while drunk they are still responsible for their actions. While not truly related imagine applying the "drunken consent != consent" rule to say drunk driving, a drunk is excused of the offense because they were drunk? No they are assumed to have sense and probably convicted of DUI and whatever else... Its your choice to drink yourself to that level (not including stuff like rohepynol here), if you don't want the loss of control don't drink. I think that if we open up "drunk excuses lack of awareness" then we start to open floodgates.
Quote:
|
The very idea of a man being influenced so heavily by what a woman wears that he ignores the fact that she doesn't want to have sex with him... is ridiculously stupid and insulting. He couldn't help himself because she was wearing something sexy? Ridiculous. Who cares if she's had sex with 50 men, she didn't want to have sex with this one. That is the only point.
|
Yes it is silly, however I can see the scenario, good looking woman, scanty dress, you go over and try your luck, she lets you buy her a few drinks, you have some yourself... things look to be going well and you are setting up a great night then she says no, lets just go our separate ways. In some cases this is probably a lot like teasing a dog, they guy was buying rounds etc and being nice for 1 purpose (in his mind), she went along with the idea then turned around and said no... I can see where it comes from even if this does not excuse it.
Quote:
|
So based on the things quoted in this article, it sounds like yes, they need reform. What the hell kind of court lets a defense attorney show the victim's underwear? Obviously, not every woman is telling the truth, and/or some may be misguided. But 96%??? I doubt that's even possible. In the case quoted about the 16-year-old (towards the bottom) - how is 4 years sufficient time, especially when he didn't serve that time?
|
Its not enough time, dunno the particulars of that case, perhaps it was very iffy conviction and so he was sentenced (and thus has rape on his record) however making it stick hard would have been impossible, dunno? The British court system seems to let you out for most crimes after 1/2 -> 2/3rds of your sentence provided good behaviour inside (reduces costs)... which doesn't seem like justice to me but then I would have a death sentence in Britain.
As for the underwear I could see it being relevant, if she suggested forced entry, attack etc however a fine pair of lace underwear or something is in perfect condition then something may be going on, again the particulars aren't included however it may be relevant and as the article says the courts don't want to get it wrong so allowing an appeal because that drags the woman through the whole situation again.