Schrödinger's Rapist

Now, I know that the concept of Schrodinger's rapist is an old one, yet searching for it yielded no metaphorical fruit and therefore I thought a discussion might be beneficial.

First off, most people will likely understand the connection between the term Schrodinger's Rapist and Schrodingers Cat, for those who don't; Schrodinger's cat is a thought experiment within quantum mechanics where a cat is put in a box in such a way that there is a 50/50 percent chance of it being dead after an hour has passed. Because we don't know the state of the cat until we've observed it the cat must therefore be considered both alive and dead until the box is opened.

Schrodinger's Rapist refers to when a man and a woman first meet. Because she doesn't know him, there is a chance that he might be a rapist and therefore should be considered both a rapist and a non-rapist until "X"

This is where it gets confusing, I write "X" because presumably he would be considered both until he is observed as raping someone at which point he is to be considered a rapist. However in a feminist interpretation I presume that one can only be observed as a non-rapist if one lives out ones life constantly monitored without incident until ones dying day at which point one gets a cookie.

It's quite sad actually. Considering that a more literal interpretation of Schrodinger's thought experiment would actually cover quite well what I consider to be proper conduct. Upon observation a man is either in a state of raping or not raping. At this point you treat him according to the observation. So if he is raping someone he is a rapist. If not then he is not. This state would be the default until another has been observed. Remember that observation can be by proxy such as a jury observing adequate evidence that he committed the crime and convicting him.

The argument however; is dependent on the term rapist being interpreted as "Being capable of rape as shown through committing the act" otherwise problems would arise as one could argue that someone who has observably raped, but doesn't currently rape should be considered not a rapist since that's the current observation and while I do believe that prisons exist not to punish, but to correct a persons behavior the perfection of such a method has yet to present itself. A person who has committed a crime must therefore be viewed as more likely to repeat it.

This is Schrödinger's real rapist. The one which I believe should apply.