Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Tax-chick

Our present legal system assumes and proceeds as if every claim of rape is true.

The identity of the “victim” is kept secret, while that of the “rapist” is immediately publicized. Usually he’s subjected to a humiliating perp-walk for the cameras.

This is long before a determination has been made that he’s guilty or even that a crime occurred at all.

Accurate statistics are difficult to come by. But it appears that 10% to 15% of rape claims result in conviction. Another 8% to 10% are definitively proven false, usually because the accused has an unbreakable alibi. (Though rape activists often use a false statistic of 2%.) The standard of evidence needed to determine a rape charge is untrue is roughly similar to that needed for conviction.

This means that in 75% to 82% (roughly) of cases, we are unable to determine definitively whether the accused committed the crime. In a considerable percentage (don’t know the number) of those, it simply cannot be proven one way or the other whether a crime occurred at all.

The great majority of these “rape culture” rapes on colleges, for instance, are date rape cases. All parties are agreed sexual activity took place, the only question in contention being whether it was consensual.

How can any human group ever reach a conclusion “beyond a reasonable doubt” when the only evidence is the conflicting testimony of two people?

I’m glad you asked! Juries reach their decision and convict, or not, based primarily on which party tells the better story. Sadly, the ability to tell a believable story has no inherent relationship to the truth of what actually happened. Some people are excellent liars, most of us have known people like that. Others can’t tell the truth effectively when they are under stress.

Is the ability to tell a coherent story well under stress, or not, really sufficient reason to convict a person of a serious crime? Is there any other crime of which people are routinely convicted simply on the unsupported and contradicted testimony of one other person?


28 posted on 03/22/2015 8:02:44 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]


To: Sherman Logan

But if you suggest they not get together in large co-ed groups and get drunk - that they might later wish they hadn’t - you’re trampling on their inalienable right to act like absolute idiots.


43 posted on 03/22/2015 12:13:23 PM PDT by Tax-chick (Google "tiny kitten pictures," and put down the gun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson