How much evidence should a victim need in order to convict their rapist?

iainmf · 2021-07-18T00:33:55+00:00

The only difference between sentencing someone to prison and kidnapping and imprisoning them is that the former is justified because the person committed a crime.

Putting innocent people in prison is a serious violation of human rights and we should do our best to avoid it.

ImplodedPotatoSalad · 2021-07-18T00:36:28+00:00

Proof = something that confirms that a word of accusation is indeed true and valid, that is not another word, and can be independently verified by the court of law.

Word is not a proof. Word is an act of accusation, nothing more. If nothing but words is given, there is no case at all. If there is evidence to contrary to what words say, accusation is deliberately false.

Its that easy.

maxlvb · 2021-07-18T00:52:13+00:00

The whole legal system is built upon a presumption that anyone accused of a crime is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

The #MeToo, #believewomen, #believeallwomen witch hunts believe that any female accuser must be right and that centuries of legal precedent can now be turned on its head to an automatic presumption of guilt.

The negative consequences of such a change on wider society cannot be contemplated.

Men need feminism like bicycles need fish.

OkSurprise7755 · 2021-07-18T00:37:58+00:00

Enough to prove without a reasonable doubt that they did it

mikesteane · 2021-07-18T01:17:59+00:00

Some people say that just their word shouldn't be enough

At best these people are fools, at worst they are evil.

In a theoretical situation where rape did in fact happen, what meets the standard for proof if not their word?

As in the headline, you have already assumed that the complainant is a victim. Evidence beyond reasonable doubt is the only standard. If that standard cannot be met, an acquittal is the only acceptable outcome.

Is a rape kit enough even though it only proves sexual contact happened?

No, for the reason you have given.

Is pictures or videos enough?

Maybe, but it depends on what the pictures/videos show.

Is the presence of a drug found in a victim's bloodstream enough?

No. And stop using the word victim, when you are talking of an accuser.

Where is the line drawn between "proof" and "not proof"?

When the evidence is sufficient to meet the standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" as with all other crimes.

DouglasWallace · 2021-07-18T01:17:40+00:00

If one person says they were raped and the only evidence available is from the person they accuse, then you have the classic "he said, she said" issue.

Convicting someone should not be on anything less than 'beyond all reasonable doubt'. If one person says one thing and another says differently, and that is all you have to go by then there is very reasonable doubt. On anything.

The first part of most rape trials is to prove that sex happened. Well, it used to be before we had this raft of 30-year historic cases where, let's be honest, nobody can hope to retain an accurate memory of events, let alone prove that sex happened. But if sex happened, was it rape? If that is all the evidence to to by then there is very reasonable doubt that the sex was rape.

Pictures and videos - particularly with sound track - help. But people do play strange sex games and maybe all that it pictured is a session of consensual BDSM (except in the UK and South Africa most BDSM cannot be consented to). That's why the sound track helps. But I can't be the only man who has made love to a woman who is muttering the likes of "Yes! Harder! Ah! No, Stop! Yes, there! Give it to me! No! Harder..." and wonder just where the heck all this constant consent is supposed to fit into a garble like that (personally I find it off-putting anyway).

Then you are asking

Is the presence of a drug found in a victim's bloodstream enough?

I thought we were talking of an accuser. If the person is a victim of rape, why are you asking. Do not fall for the feminist trick of confusing an accuser with a victim. An accuser might be a victim. An accuser might be trying to make a victim of the person they are accusing.

If or when you ever sit on a jury (on any kind of trial), you will find that the answer to each individual trial's issue of whether the case is proven or not is very individual. What it must never become is as the feminists would have it: a woman accuses a man, therefore the man is guilty. As tough as I'm sure it is for a genuine victim of rape (and I have huge sympathy for them) the rule of law must be upheld for the person they accuse.

The jury - untainted by any pre-trial indoctrination lessons - must listen to the individual facts and make their determination. If they know they are in a jurisdiction (such as USA) where a man accused of rape is not allowed to bring all kinds of evidence to his case (evidence that is permitted in other types of case) then the jury might well have a huge extra reason to doubt the accused person's guilt. That's a great shame because it means that rapists will be more likely to escape justice; the blame for that is directly with feminist-promoted laws and regulations.

ThisIsTheEnd6 · 2021-07-18T00:58:17+00:00

There's court of public opinion...and there's legal court. Burden of proof is different for each.

They can't put Cosby in jail, but he passed my burden of proof in court of public opinion. So Eff that guy.

The burden of proof for me to think you are probably a rapist is a lot lower than the burden of proof to lock you up and deprive you of your basic freedoms.

If 16 people say someone is a rapist, I don't want my daughter to hang out with them. But that doesn't mean there's enough evidence to jail someone.

Punder_man · 2021-07-18T01:16:34+00:00

Its difficult.. to say the least..

Rape is a crime which leaves very little tangible evidence behind..
Unlike theft for example where you can accuse someone of theft and the evidence would be finding the stolen item on them or where they live.

But with Rape.. it's very often a he said she said situation..
As you said a "Rape Kit" doesn't prove rape.. it proves that sexual intercourse happened..
Short of us being able to witness the memories exactly as they were experienced by both parties there's no real conclusive way to tell what happened one way or the other..

Now that being said.. if a man was found to be carrying common date rape drugs, that would be some evidence.. but sadly there's no slam dunk piece of evidence that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that he committed rape.

Another issue to consider is.. if both parties were equally drunk then can it still be rape if neither party is sober enough to provide enthusiastic consent?

a-man-from-earth · 2021-07-18T03:12:33+00:00

Asked and answered yesterday.

BornAgainSpecial · 2021-07-18T02:52:18+00:00

I think a lot of people don't realize that when DNA testing became widespread, rape conviction rates plummeted. Not only were the women not being raped, they weren't even having sex. The other thing to consider is that we don't punish women for lying about rape. So there is every incentive imaginable to lie about rape. So we know the rate of fraudulent accusations is extremely high. We also know from psychology that when people are actually raped, they are embarrassed and keep it to themselves. For these reasons, we need to be extremely skeptical of women.

First we need to start requiring proof. Second, we need an expedient way to dismiss cases from the get go. If the woman was texting her friends about how great the sex was, it didn't happen. If the woman changed her mind, it didn't happen. If the woman reports it decades later, it didn't happen. If the woman reports it to the school or the media instead of to the police, it didn't happen. If it's date rape, it didn't happen. If it's statutory rape, it didn't happen. If it's that weird stuff in Australia where it counts as rape if the man lied about his income, it's reverse rape. If it's the wave of feminist who says all sex is rape, it didn't happen.

There is one more kind of alleged rape that isn't real. Imagine a young woman is upset that her boyfriend pressured her into sex. She say, "My boyfriend raped me. I said no. He kept asking. I gave in, but I didn't really want to". That's also not rape.

Actual rape is extremely rare because we live in an anti-rape culture where we punish rape more harshly than murder and men are taught to respect women to the point of being afraid of them and their tremendous institutional power.

Title	How much evidence should a victim need in order to convict their rapist?
Author	throwawayyo27890
Upvotes	0
Comments	28
Date	July 17, 2021 11:41 PM UTC (5 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/omfc99/how_much_evidence_should_a_victim_need_in_order/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/how-much-evidence-should-a-victim-need-in-order-to.824101 https://theredarchive.com/post/824101

Comments