Skip to comments.Why Don Opposes Capital Rape
Posted on 04/19/2013 5:12:44 AM PDT by Kaslin
click here to read article
Romans 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
I agree as to what constitutes rape. I am merely pointing out that rape is the only crime in which the consent or non-consent of the purported victim is (often) the only question at issue at trial. All agree intercourse occurred, the only question is whether she agreed to it.
So the only issue to be appropriately discussed in court is what was going on in her head at the time. Since she is the only person who can testify to this, they only question at issue in the whole trial is what she now says that POV was.
There is generally a tendency to accept a woman’s story of being raped, or at least there is more so now, as compared to the past. But (some) women do lie, as do some men. And some women are confused or delusional, as are some men.
In actual fact, in many cases of claimed rape, the whole trial boils down to who is more believable on the stand to the jury. The problem with this is that we have all known people who were exceptionally good liars, very believable while lying through their teeth. And most of us have known people who are nervous in tense situations, such as courtroom testimony and respond by acting in ways that make them less believable.
I just think it odd to determine guilt or innocence by who tells the better story. I find it very difficult to see how guilt beyond a reasonable doubt can be determined based solely on two conflicting sets of testimony.
I need to get far more graphic than I really care to here to describe it, but there is a characteristic injury that occurs only during rape.
A woman engaging in consensual intercourse (no matter how "rough" she likes it) positions her hips so as to accommodate the man. A woman being raped does not position herself in that manner. The difference in position causes injuries to the back wall and cervix that simply do not happen otherwise. This kind of injury is very distinctive to rape, and is the kind of injury documented during a rape examination when the victim goes to seek emergency medical treatment. This type of injury also is part of the reason why pregnancy rarely results from true rape. Yes, Akins was correct.
There will also be differences in external injuries between someone who likes S&M and someone trying to fight off an attacker. The person trying to fight off an attacker will have abrasions and bruising inconsistent with S&M play, and often has blood and bits of skin under her nails.
True rape is a violent act; no violent act occurs without leaving behind physical evidence.
Just repeating Paul’s advice (command?).
But to answer your question, NO.
That said, I am a firm supporter of capital punishment for forcible rape. “Date rape” is more questionable.
If she’s, say, in bed with the fellow, it gets to be more and more of a he-said, she-said problem. Without firm evidence other than her word, I’d have to let him go entirely.
Drugged, or drunk unconscious
=death. Drunk till tipsy. What the hell were you thinking, girl?
If a woman neglects to report it to the police before the evidence dissipates, she really has forfeited her chance to get justice, IMO.
Frankly, my opinion is that if a woman is in any doubt as to whether she was raped, or not, then she wasn't.
Seduction is not rape.
I agree with you, though, people are pretty stupid when they get on juries, or maybe nobody wants any but stupid people on juries.
If it comes down to he-said, she-said, the man always wins with me, purely on the reasonable doubt issue.
Sorry, I find that really difficult to believe. I will not attempt to dispute your claims about the specific injuries associated with forcible rape.
I do have a question, though. If these injuries are prima facie evidence of rape, is the absence of such injuries equally considered evidence of consensual sex? If not, why not?
Not all rape is forcible, as women are often terrified or threatened into submitting, which is no less rape. For instance, a gun at the temple leaves no physical evidence. Or a threat to a child. In such circumstances, I find it difficult to imagine a women would not position herself so as to minimize the discomfort she's enduring, which would seem to make the characteristic injuries of forcible rape less likely or at least less severe.
There is a dirty little secret about rape charges. The Left makes a lot of play about the many men whom DNA evidence has "proven innocent" as a way of attacking our legal system.
What they seldom go into is that the considerable majority of such cases involve rape, for the obvious reason that usable DNA is most often available in a rape case.
This means that most of these men were exonerated by the evidence showing they did not have sex with the accuser. Which leads to the fairly obvious question of how many more men are in jail for false accusations of rape where the only question at issue is one of whether the sex was consensual and thus DNA cannot be used to prove their innocence.
Personally, I think men who engage in one night stands and similar behavior are comprehensively insane. They can be accused of rape at any moment, and their conviction or acquittal hinge entirely on a jury's opinion as to who tells the better story. And even if acquitted they are likely to be considered "really" guilty by many for the rest of their lives. As I say, insane.
The specific injuries I described occur regardless of whether a woman is threatened or physically subdued into submitting, or even if she is unconscious. In a forcible rape, she does not place herself in a receptive position, which is a major cause of injuries. Other physiological changes which normally occur during a consensual encounter do not happen during a rape, also contributing to rape injuries.
Rape can cause permanent infertility. Rape can kill. True forcible rape bears very little resemblance to the consensual act. The evidence amounts to quite a bit more than just “he said, she said.”
Murder for convenience has always been against the law, that’s why unborn humans had to be re-labeled as “not humans”.
The folks that deny this might be surprised how God does not believe they didn’t know it was wrong to kill their unborn children for convenience, but I doubt it. They know it’s murder.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.