(obviously inspired by the Justin Bieber story).

In my opinion, the problems with false rape accussations and rape have the same source to solve.

We started out with problems with rape in the justice system. It's well known that rape is difficult to proof, so people started believing rape accussations over judgements in court. Eventually people got fed up with the problems remaining so they became louder and louder with the accusations. Then accusations became the triall.

Absolutely terrible for victims of false rape accussations. Now they have an epidemic. And sentences without having commited a crime. So they're obviously going to attack the accusations. Because that's their direct issue.

While I'm suggesting that we both go fight the original source and fix both our problems?

First off: because I'd like the rape and justice system problem to be fixed, because I'm a women and that's my biggest connection but also because I truly belief that you can't fix false rape accussations without fixing that. The people fighting for that, won't allow it, because it's in direct conflict with the action chosen to fight for their cause.

Thoughts?

I've recently heard about the new Swedish way of solving the problem with rape and justice. Instead of the rape case revolving around the story of the person who got raped, you revolve it around the story of the accussed. How does he claim that consent happened?

The accussed is still innocent until proven guilty. The goverment still has to proof that he raped her. But instead of going with her story and proving that that happened, they're going with his story and proving that that didn't happen and that the didn't happens proof opportunity for rape.

So, if a rapist claims to have had no sex with the victim, the goverment just needs to proof that sex happened. If you are innocent and don't lie: they can't proof that sex happened.

If a rapist claims to have had sex with the victim, but consensual because she said "yes", the goverment just needs to proof that she was unable to say "yes", because for instance unconcious. If you had sex and she did say "yes", then they can't proof that she was unable to have sex.

Etc etc. It's not, oh so you claims that she said "yes", go proof that she did. The burden of proof is still with the goverment.

I'm only new to this idea, but in my first thoughts: this could work. Probably the best we can get in current times. But as it's new to me and I'm not from Sweden or speak the language, I can't test it with critical minds.

So... thoughts? (2)