Define Consent. - Page 3

mijopaalmc · 26th April 2012, 10:00 PM

Originally Posted by Ferguson

Yet unwarranted assumptions about a man's sexual 'preference' (e.g., that he's a rapist) is unquestionably better as an alternative to a woman lying

.

Rape is an action not a sexual preference. JJM 777 specifically refers to a "subculture" that engages in rough sex, which implies that rough sex is something that people prefer to perform. No-one, as of yet has, suggested that rape is a sexual preference. That is, someone "is a rapist" as a result of an action not as a result of a state of being.

Smackety · 26th April 2012, 11:00 PM

In my experience, if there is a question about consent, you are highly unlikely to get an indictment without physical evidence, especially if the victim is unable to speak for themselves. Consent is the alleged perpetrator providing a plausible explanation for the incident.

JJM 777 · 27th April 2012, 12:35 PM

Originally Posted by Smackety

you are highly unlikely to get an indictment without physical evidence

But (as said already) the physical evidence might not be evidence at all, if it might be result of:
- consensual rough sex between the two
- and accident during consensual sex that caused soft sex become rough for a moment
- consensual or non-consensual sex between the woman and someone else, either before or after
- the woman doing violence to herself

JJM 777 · 27th April 2012, 12:36 PM

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

You realize that the standard of evidence is "beyond a reasonable doubt" not "beyond a shadow of a doubt"?

It probably is, but then it does not meet the ideal "innocent until _proven_ guilty".

mijopaalmc · 27th April 2012, 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by JJM 777

It probably is, but then it does not meet the ideal "innocent until _proven_ guilty".

You don't understand the "proven" part then.

crimresearch · 27th April 2012, 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by JJM 777

But (as said already) the physical evidence might not be evidence at all, if it might be result of:
- consensual rough sex between the two
- and accident during consensual sex that caused soft sex become rough for a moment
- consensual or non-consensual sex between the woman and someone else, either before or after
- the woman doing violence to herself

And where exactly are all these rape convictions for consensual rough sex occuring?

crimresearch · 27th April 2012, 12:51 PM

Originally Posted by JJM 777

It probably is, but then it does not meet the ideal "innocent until _proven_ guilty".

The standard of 'proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt' doesn't meet the ideal of 'innocent until proven guilty in a court of law'??

You do realize that this forum is for talking about current reality, not about science fiction alternate universes, don't you?

Smackety · 27th April 2012, 06:40 PM

Originally Posted by JJM 777

But (as said already) the physical evidence might not be evidence at all, if it might be result of:
- consensual rough sex between the two
- and accident during consensual sex that caused soft sex become rough for a moment
- consensual or non-consensual sex between the woman and someone else, either before or after
- the woman doing violence to herself

That is why there is a trial, though your examples sound more like bad television plots than things that have actually happened. Do you actually have any links to cases where it turned out a woman's vagina was ripped by accident and then the woman lied and had her consensual sex partner jailed for rape? You have to admit it is kind of far-fetched!

JJM 777 · 27th April 2012, 11:15 PM

Originally Posted by Smackety

That is why there is a trial, though your examples sound more like bad television plots than things that have actually happened. Do you actually have any links to cases where it turned out a woman's vagina was ripped by accident and then the woman lied and had her consensual sex partner jailed for rape? You have to admit it is kind of far-fetched!

It is well known that all of these have happened, and more than that. A rape actually happened but it is unclear who did it, someone must go to jail and the wrong guy goes. Consensual sex later blamed as rape by the woman (Assange, anyone?), 10 years later the woman gets religious and confesses. And so on...

slingblade · 27th April 2012, 11:26 PM

Originally Posted by JJM 777

It is well known that all of these have happened, and more than that. A rape actually happened but it is unclear who did it, someone must go to jail and the wrong guy goes. Consensual sex later blamed as rape by the woman (Assange, anyone?), 10 years later the woman gets religious and confesses. And so on...

Oh yeah, because it never happens that a woman actually does get raped, but no one believes her or the evidence is too scant to prove it, and the rat bastard gets away with it.

You got your troubles, we've got ours.

JJM 777 · 27th April 2012, 11:47 PM

Originally Posted by slingblade

the rat bastard gets away with it.

This is quite much why the accusations are easily believed to be true, even in the absence of conclusive evidence. Punishment feels necessary, _someone_ must be punished for this.

slingblade · 28th April 2012, 12:47 AM

Originally Posted by JJM 777

This is quite much why the accusations are easily believed to be true, even in the absence of conclusive evidence. Punishment feels necessary, _someone_ must be punished for this.

You were asked for evidence, not more blanket assertions.

Have any? Any at all?

No one is denying that false accusations of rape are made; no one is denying that wrongful convictions occur. We'd just like to see your data, upon which you base your assertions.

crimresearch · 28th April 2012, 04:47 AM

Originally Posted by JJM 777

It is well known that all of these have happened, and more than that. A rape actually happened but it is unclear who did it, someone must go to jail and the wrong guy goes. Consensual sex later blamed as rape by the woman (Assange, anyone?), 10 years later the woman gets religious and confesses. And so on...

And none of that supports your original assertion about 'only in rape'. False accusations, circumstantial evidence, and wrongful convictions are part of other charges as well.

And your other assertion that people are convicted of rape for consensual adult sex is debunked by both the written statutes and the court record.

JJM 777 · 28th April 2012, 06:30 AM

Originally Posted by crimresearch

False accusations, circumstantial evidence, and wrongful convictions are part of other charges as well.

Not in all crimes anyway.

For example, in Finland you can get a speeding ticket only if a patrol of two policemen catch you in the act, or a speed camera takes a recognizable photo of you and your vehicle. A photo of the vehicle only is not accepted as evidence -- the explanation goes that someone else might have been driving it. Neither is any other witness accepted as the ones listed above. Passengers in the car cannot sue the driver for speeding, even though they are eye-witnesses to the speedometer figures.

Autolite · 28th April 2012, 08:51 AM

Consent?

It all depends on what type of mood she happens to be in the next morning...

Autolite · 28th April 2012, 09:13 AM

Originally Posted by I Ratant

.
That's where the video cameras come in very handy..
"Consent all the way, yer honor, that evening!"

Using a hidden video camera in the bedroom is illegal (without prior court authorization) here in Canada. However, I know of a case where a soon-to-be-ex-wife did just that to intentionally trap her soon-to-be-ex-husband performing an illegal act.

The court seems to have ignored the fact that what the wife did was against the law so I suppose using a video camera in such a way might be advisable only if you're female...

mijopaalmc · 28th April 2012, 09:22 AM

Originally Posted by Autolite

Consent?

It all depends on what type of mood she happens to be in the next morning...

That's the kind of attitude that is downright disgusting in its sexism. Why do you assume that women are capricious and out to get men?

mijopaalmc · 28th April 2012, 09:26 AM

Originally Posted by JJM 777

Not in all crimes anyway.

For example, in Finland you can get a speeding ticket only if a patrol of two policemen catch you in the act, or a speed camera takes a recognizable photo of you and your vehicle. A photo of the vehicle only is not accepted as evidence -- the explanation goes that someone else might have been driving it. Neither is any other witness accepted as the ones listed above. Passengers in the car cannot sue the driver for speeding, even though they are eye-witnesses to the speedometer figures.

You do understand that speeding is a criminal offense, and that's whu the state bring action. Private citizens don't have standing.

I Ratant · 28th April 2012, 09:53 AM

Originally Posted by Autolite

Using a hidden video camera in the bedroom is illegal (without prior court authorization) here in Canada. However, I know of a case where a soon-to-be-ex-wife did just that to intentionally trap her soon-to-be-ex-husband performing an illegal act.

The court seems to have ignored the fact that what the wife did was against the law so I suppose using a video camera in such a way might be advisable only if you're female...

.
If she's holding the camera at times.....

Smackety · 28th April 2012, 09:54 AM

Originally Posted by JJM 777

It is well known that all of these have happened, and more than that. A rape actually happened but it is unclear who did it, someone must go to jail and the wrong guy goes. Consensual sex later blamed as rape by the woman (Assange, anyone?), 10 years later the woman gets religious and confesses. And so on...

So your only example is the Assange case? He was not charged with rape, so I don't see how it is even relevant?

applecorped · 28th April 2012, 09:56 AM

It's the opposite of prosent.

squareone · 28th April 2012, 11:07 AM

Consent?

I know it when I see it!

Autolite · 28th April 2012, 02:10 PM

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

That's the kind of attitude that is downright disgusting in its sexism. Why do you assume that women are capricious and out to get men?

You'll have to excuse me, but my comments and attitude are only the result of direct personal experience and observation...

AvalonXQ · 28th April 2012, 02:26 PM

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

That's the kind of attitude that is downright disgusting in its sexism. Why do you assume that women are capricious and out to get men?

It's not a statement about women; it's a statement about a system that eschews objective evidence of consent at the time for subjective evidence of consent as one party claims later.

A lot of people regret sexual behavior after-the-fact; it's unfortunate, then, that some feel the need to assuage that regret by shifting the blame for the act to someone else.

Professor Yaffle · 28th April 2012, 02:33 PM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

It's not a statement about women; it's a statement about a system that eschews objective evidence of consent at the time for subjective evidence of consent as one party claims later.

A lot of people regret sexual behavior after-the-fact; it's unfortunate, then, that some feel the need to assuage that regret by shifting the blame for the act to someone else.

Yeah this all pervasive attitude that is the cause of such a high prosecution and conviction rates in rape cases. I know exactly what you mean. The woman is always believed, no matter what. This culture just has to be changed.

* Professor Yaffle can't find the sarcasm font

AvalonXQ · 28th April 2012, 02:38 PM

Originally Posted by Professor Yaffle

Yeah this all pervasive attitude that is the cause of such a high prosecution and conviction rates in rape cases. I know exactly what you mean. The woman is always believed, no matter what. This culture just has to be changed.

I know; it's pretty terrible that we don't live in a culture where whatever women say about men is just automatically believed. After all, none of us knows a woman who is at all unstable or vindictive (or who is encouraged to be so by her friends and family); none of us know men and women who try to use the legal system to get back emotionally at others (such as by threatening child custody).

In fact, the more frequently we convict men based on women's words alone, with no corroborating evidence, the safer our society will be -- it's not as though a rape accusation has any noticeable effect on a man's reputation, livelihood, or personal safety. Why should rape be treated on the basis of real evidence, like all other crimes?

mijopaalmc · 28th April 2012, 03:12 PM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I know; it's pretty terrible that we don't live in a culture where whatever women say about men is just automatically believed. After all, done of us knows a woman who is at all unstable or vindictive (or who is encouraged to be so by her friends and family); none of us know men and women who try to use the legal system to get back emotionally at others (such as by threatening child custody).

In fact, the more frequently we convict men based on women's words alone, with no corroborating evidence, the safer our society will be -- it's not as though a rape accusation has any noticeable effect on a man's reputation, livelihood, or personal safety. Why should rape be treated on the basis of real evidence, like all other crimes?

You obviously missed the sarcasm.

Nonetheless, your assertion that rape is treated any differently than any other crime is false. Because the standard of evidence for a conviction in any criminal action is "beyond a reasonable", all that the prosecution has to do is present a case that is more compelling than that of the defense and that stand up under the defense's scrutiny. The argument that the prosecution presents doesn't even have to be true insofar as, even if the defendant did commit the crime, the prosecution's argument doesn't have to an account of the crime as it was actually in every detail; the prosecution's argument just has to be a plausible explanation for the physical and narrative evidence.

In any case, you and JJM 777 are applying a standard of proof to rape cases that the criminal justice system does not apply to the prosecution of any other criminal action. Both of you are, in other words, treating rape as special and then trying to blame the criminal justice system for doing so.

mijopaalmc · 28th April 2012, 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by Autolite

You'll have to excuse me, but my comments and attitude are only the result of direct personal experience and observation...

The plural of anecdote is not evidence.

AvalonXQ · 28th April 2012, 03:24 PM

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

Nonetheless, your assertion that rape is treated any differently than any other crime is false.

Clearly you are unaware of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which specifically and explicitly treat rape different from any other crime* by excluding relevant evidence , as well as including evidence we don't otherwise ever allow in court -- provisions that were decried by legal scholars upon their enactment for privileging sexual assault above other crimes.

These changes to the FRE were made by Congress for entirely political reasons, with no evidentiary justification backing them up, because of the stigma carried by those accusated of sexual assault.

How much of this were you aware of before now?

Quote:

Because the standard of evidence for a conviction in any criminal action is "beyond a reasonable", all that the prosecution has to do is present a case that is more compelling than that of the defense and that stand up under the defense's scrutiny.

Clearly you are unaware of the standard of evidence in criminal cases, as your description of it isn't even a little bit legally accurate.

*To be precise, one other crime is given the same special status.

mijopaalmc · 28th April 2012, 03:44 PM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Clearly you are unaware of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which specifically and explicitly treat rape different from any other crime* by excluding relevant evidence , as well as including evidence we don't otherwise ever allow in court -- provisions that were decried by legal scholars upon their enactment for privileging sexual assault above other crimes.

These changes to the FRE were made by Congress for entirely political reasons, with no evidentiary justification backing them up, because of the stigma carried by those accusated of sexual assault.

How much of this were you aware of before now?

You're going to need to be more specific, because the exclusions that you refer preclude the use of "evidence" that is irrelevant to the alleged crime.

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Clearly you are unaware of the standard of evidence in criminal cases, as your description of it isn't even a little bit legally accurate.

So you are saying that the standard for a criminal conviction is not that the prosecution has demonstrated that the defendant could have committed the alleged crime beyond a reasonable doubt?

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

*To be precise, one other crime is given the same special status.

You are aware that the recidivism rate for sex crimes is significantly higher than that of other crimes?

AvalonXQ · 28th April 2012, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

You're going to need to be more specific, because the exclusions that you refer preclude the use of "evidence" that is irrelevant to the alleged crime.

Again, you're showing your ignorance. These FRE sections specifically exclude evidence relevant to the crime if that evidence happens to fall into certain categories, while including evidence of unproved accusations of similar offenses.

These are rules that don't even apply to murder; only to sexual assault and child molestation, and only because, culturally, those are "icky" crimes where the perps don't deserve the same fair treatment.

Anyway, your claim that rape is treated the same as other crimes is explicitly demonstrated to be false. Do you admit your mistake, or at least your previous ignorance of these facts? Or do you ignore the issue because being right is more important than arriving at the truth?

Quote:

You are aware that the recidivism rate for sex crimes is significantly higher than that of other crimes?

Care to cite your sources for that?

It's a common myth, but entirely false; in point of fact, sexual assault has the lowest recidivism rate other than murder.

Here is a good place to start; note that less-than-10% recidivism rate for sexual assault versus the 40% or higher general recidivism rate.

AvalonXQ · 28th April 2012, 04:29 PM

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

So you are saying that the standard for a criminal conviction is not that the prosecution has demonstrated that the defendant could have committed the alleged crime beyond a reasonable doubt?

No; I am saying that your description of this as...

Quote:

all that the prosecution has to do is present a case that is more compelling than that of the defense and that stand up under the defense's scrutiny

... is entirely wrong. What you're describing there is called "a preponderence of the evidence" -- a different, lower standard of proof that is not the standard in criminal cases.

mijopaalmc · 28th April 2012, 04:46 PM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

No; I am saying that your description of this as...

... is entirely wrong. What you're describing there is called "a preponderence of the evidence" -- a different, lower standard of proof that is not the standard in criminal cases.

Then how would you describe "reasonable doubt"?

AvalonXQ · 28th April 2012, 04:49 PM

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

Then how would you describe "reasonable doubt"?

"Proof beyond a reasonable doubt" means, there must not be any doubt that would affect a reasonable person's belief that the defendent is guilty.

This isn't the law, but I put it this way -- if there is any explanation that a reasonable person could accept as supported by the facts where the defendant is not guilty, then the defendant is not guilty.

Yes, this is a very high standard... and, honestly, the privacy and lack of physically identifiable harm characterizing many sexual assault crimes will mean that, very often, this standard cannot be met.

While this is unfortunate, it is also not something that we should try to fix by changing the rules to lean any harder on the accused, because our rules are in place to protect the innocent. Sexual assault charges are not magically immune from being leveled falsely, accidentally or maliciously.

mijopaalmc · 28th April 2012, 04:55 PM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

"Proof beyond a reasonable doubt" means, there must not be any doubt that would affect a reasonable person's belief that the defendent is guilty.

This isn't the law, but I put it this way -- if there is any explanation that a reasonable person could accept as supported by the facts where the defendant is not guilty, then the defendant is not guilty.

I could claim I misspoke (mistyped), but that would just make it seem that I was trying to weasel my way out of being wrong. I understood what I said about reasonable doubt to be equivalent to what you said, but, if you didn't understand it the same way, I was not communicating effectively.

Thanks for the clarification.

AvalonXQ · 28th April 2012, 04:58 PM

I think my problem with your description is the existence of the "preponderance of the evidence" standard used for some civil matters.

To meet a preponderance of the evidence, you just have to show that your side is more likely to be true than the other side: 51% to 49% would do it. I saw your description, "all that the prosecution has to do is present a case that is more compelling than that of the defense", as equalling this standard.

Either way, I think we've cleared the issue up now, so thank you.

JJM 777 · 29th April 2012, 04:47 AM

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

all that the prosecution has to do is present a case that is more compelling than that of the defense

So the prosecution has evidence which is true with 60% probability. The defense has counter-evidence which is true with 40% probability. To jail you go for 5 years, you (60% probably) filthy buzztard.

This may be true, for many types of crimes. Yet I don´t like it, I would like to see the society try a bit harder to treat its citizens justly.

crimresearch · 29th April 2012, 04:55 AM

Originally Posted by JJM 777

Not in all crimes anyway.

For example, in Finland you can get a speeding ticket only if a patrol of two policemen catch you in the act, or a speed camera takes a recognizable photo of you and your vehicle. A photo of the vehicle only is not accepted as evidence -- the explanation goes that someone else might have been driving it. Neither is any other witness accepted as the ones listed above. Passengers in the car cannot sue the driver for speeding, even though they are eye-witnesses to the speedometer figures.

None of which has anything to do with what you asserted. Do traffic citations get a jury trial in Finland? Or are you just throwing in some red lipeäkala?

JJM 777 · 29th April 2012, 04:57 AM

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

are saying that the standard for a criminal conviction is not that the prosecution has demonstrated that the defendant could have committed the alleged crime

Hold your horses for a second.

So a person is murdered in the forest. All the police need to do is get hold of _someone_ in the society who potentially could have been there and then -- no waterproof alibi, nobody witnesses seeing him elsewhere at the moment. We have a person who could have committed the alleged crime. Then hang him.

crimresearch · 29th April 2012, 05:10 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Clearly you are unaware of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which specifically and explicitly treat rape different from any other crime* by excluding relevant evidence , as well as including evidence we don't otherwise ever allow in court -- provisions that were decried by legal scholars upon their enactment for privileging sexual assault above other crimes.

These changes to the FRE were made by Congress for entirely political reasons, with no evidentiary justification backing them up, because of the stigma carried by those accusated of sexual assault.

How much of this were you aware of before now?

Clearly you are unaware of the standard of evidence in criminal cases, as your description of it isn't even a little bit legally accurate.

*To be precise, one other crime is given the same special status.

If you are going to Google things like the FRE, you might want to actually learn a little bit about the law before making ridiculous assertions.

Evidence of prior acts may be allowed in other offenses under the same test as in the 2 you linked to. (Which also said 'may be', not 'must be allowed').

And your fantasy construct of 'objective evidence of consent' earlier is also ridiculous... The accused claiming they had consent, be it rape, larceny, or battery isn't objective evidence, it is an assertion which can be either confirmed or rebutted by the other party.

Since JJM777 is running away from his claim, do you have any recent cites for a case where all parties agreed it was consensual adult sex being successfully prosecuted as rape?

26th April 2012, 10:00 PM	#81
mijopaalmc Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 4,638	Originally Posted by Ferguson Yet unwarranted assumptions about a man's sexual 'preference' (e.g., that he's a rapist) is unquestionably better as an alternative to a woman lying . Rape is an action not a sexual preference. JJM 777 specifically refers to a "subculture" that engages in rough sex, which implies that rough sex is something that people prefer to perform. No-one, as of yet has, suggested that rape is a sexual preference. That is, someone "is a rapist" as a result of an action not as a result of a state of being.
mijopaalmc Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 4,638

27th April 2012, 12:35 PM	#83
JJM 777 Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Finland Posts: 3,175	Originally Posted by Smackety you are highly unlikely to get an indictment without physical evidence But (as said already) the physical evidence might not be evidence at all, if it might be result of: - consensual rough sex between the two - and accident during consensual sex that caused soft sex become rough for a moment - consensual or non-consensual sex between the woman and someone else, either before or after - the woman doing violence to herself
	Last edited by JJM 777; 27th April 2012 at 12:36 PM.

27th April 2012, 12:47 PM	#85
mijopaalmc Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 4,638	Originally Posted by JJM 777 It probably is, but then it does not meet the ideal "innocent until _proven_ guilty". You don't understand the "proven" part then.
mijopaalmc Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 4,638

27th April 2012, 12:48 PM	#86
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618	Originally Posted by JJM 777 But (as said already) the physical evidence might not be evidence at all, if it might be result of: - consensual rough sex between the two - and accident during consensual sex that caused soft sex become rough for a moment - consensual or non-consensual sex between the woman and someone else, either before or after - the woman doing violence to herself And where exactly are all these rape convictions for consensual rough sex occuring?
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618

27th April 2012, 12:51 PM	#87
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618	Originally Posted by JJM 777 It probably is, but then it does not meet the ideal "innocent until _proven_ guilty". The standard of 'proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt' doesn't meet the ideal of 'innocent until proven guilty in a court of law'?? You do realize that this forum is for talking about current reality, not about science fiction alternate universes, don't you?
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618

26th April 2012, 11:00 PM	#82
Smackety Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 1,145	In my experience, if there is a question about consent, you are highly unlikely to get an indictment without physical evidence, especially if the victim is unable to speak for themselves. Consent is the alleged perpetrator providing a plausible explanation for the incident.

27th April 2012, 12:36 PM	#84
JJM 777 Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Finland Posts: 3,175	Originally Posted by mijopaalmc You realize that the standard of evidence is "beyond a reasonable doubt" not "beyond a shadow of a doubt"? It probably is, but then it does not meet the ideal "innocent until _proven_ guilty".

27th April 2012, 06:40 PM	#88
Smackety Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 1,145	Originally Posted by JJM 777 But (as said already) the physical evidence might not be evidence at all, if it might be result of: - consensual rough sex between the two - and accident during consensual sex that caused soft sex become rough for a moment - consensual or non-consensual sex between the woman and someone else, either before or after - the woman doing violence to herself That is why there is a trial, though your examples sound more like bad television plots than things that have actually happened. Do you actually have any links to cases where it turned out a woman's vagina was ripped by accident and then the woman lied and had her consensual sex partner jailed for rape? You have to admit it is kind of far-fetched!

27th April 2012, 11:15 PM	#89
JJM 777 Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Finland Posts: 3,175	Originally Posted by Smackety That is why there is a trial, though your examples sound more like bad television plots than things that have actually happened. Do you actually have any links to cases where it turned out a woman's vagina was ripped by accident and then the woman lied and had her consensual sex partner jailed for rape? You have to admit it is kind of far-fetched! It is well known that all of these have happened, and more than that. A rape actually happened but it is unclear who did it, someone must go to jail and the wrong guy goes. Consensual sex later blamed as rape by the woman (Assange, anyone?), 10 years later the woman gets religious and confesses. And so on...

27th April 2012, 11:26 PM	#90
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642	Originally Posted by JJM 777 It is well known that all of these have happened, and more than that. A rape actually happened but it is unclear who did it, someone must go to jail and the wrong guy goes. Consensual sex later blamed as rape by the woman (Assange, anyone?), 10 years later the woman gets religious and confesses. And so on... Oh yeah, because it never happens that a woman actually does get raped, but no one believes her or the evidence is too scant to prove it, and the rat bastard gets away with it. You got your troubles, we've got ours.
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642

27th April 2012, 11:47 PM	#91
JJM 777 Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Finland Posts: 3,175	Originally Posted by slingblade the rat bastard gets away with it. This is quite much why the accusations are easily believed to be true, even in the absence of conclusive evidence. Punishment feels necessary, _someone_ must be punished for this.

28th April 2012, 12:47 AM	#92
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642	Originally Posted by JJM 777 This is quite much why the accusations are easily believed to be true, even in the absence of conclusive evidence. Punishment feels necessary, _someone_ must be punished for this. You were asked for evidence, not more blanket assertions. Have any? Any at all? No one is denying that false accusations of rape are made; no one is denying that wrongful convictions occur. We'd just like to see your data, upon which you base your assertions.
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642

28th April 2012, 04:47 AM	#93
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618	Originally Posted by JJM 777 It is well known that all of these have happened, and more than that. A rape actually happened but it is unclear who did it, someone must go to jail and the wrong guy goes. Consensual sex later blamed as rape by the woman (Assange, anyone?), 10 years later the woman gets religious and confesses. And so on... And none of that supports your original assertion about 'only in rape'. False accusations, circumstantial evidence, and wrongful convictions are part of other charges as well. And your other assertion that people are convicted of rape for consensual adult sex is debunked by both the written statutes and the court record.
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618

28th April 2012, 06:30 AM	#94
JJM 777 Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Finland Posts: 3,175	Originally Posted by crimresearch False accusations, circumstantial evidence, and wrongful convictions are part of other charges as well. Not in all crimes anyway. For example, in Finland you can get a speeding ticket only if a patrol of two policemen catch you in the act, or a speed camera takes a recognizable photo of you and your vehicle. A photo of the vehicle only is not accepted as evidence -- the explanation goes that someone else might have been driving it. Neither is any other witness accepted as the ones listed above. Passengers in the car cannot sue the driver for speeding, even though they are eye-witnesses to the speedometer figures.
	Last edited by JJM 777; 28th April 2012 at 06:32 AM.

28th April 2012, 08:51 AM	#95
Autolite Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 1,489	Consent? It all depends on what type of mood she happens to be in the next morning...
	__________________ "When they come around sweet talkin', don't listen" - Willie Stark

28th April 2012, 09:13 AM	#96
Autolite Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 1,489	Originally Posted by I Ratant . That's where the video cameras come in very handy.. "Consent all the way, yer honor, that evening!" Using a hidden video camera in the bedroom is illegal (without prior court authorization) here in Canada. However, I know of a case where a soon-to-be-ex-wife did just that to intentionally trap her soon-to-be-ex-husband performing an illegal act. The court seems to have ignored the fact that what the wife did was against the law so I suppose using a video camera in such a way might be advisable only if you're female...
	__________________ "When they come around sweet talkin', don't listen" - Willie Stark

28th April 2012, 09:22 AM	#97
mijopaalmc Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 4,638	Originally Posted by Autolite Consent? It all depends on what type of mood she happens to be in the next morning... That's the kind of attitude that is downright disgusting in its sexism. Why do you assume that women are capricious and out to get men?
mijopaalmc Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 4,638

28th April 2012, 09:26 AM	#98
mijopaalmc Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 4,638	Originally Posted by JJM 777 Not in all crimes anyway. For example, in Finland you can get a speeding ticket only if a patrol of two policemen catch you in the act, or a speed camera takes a recognizable photo of you and your vehicle. A photo of the vehicle only is not accepted as evidence -- the explanation goes that someone else might have been driving it. Neither is any other witness accepted as the ones listed above. Passengers in the car cannot sue the driver for speeding, even though they are eye-witnesses to the speedometer figures. You do understand that speeding is a criminal offense, and that's whu the state bring action. Private citizens don't have standing.
mijopaalmc Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 4,638

28th April 2012, 09:53 AM	#99
I Ratant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 15,305	Originally Posted by Autolite Using a hidden video camera in the bedroom is illegal (without prior court authorization) here in Canada. However, I know of a case where a soon-to-be-ex-wife did just that to intentionally trap her soon-to-be-ex-husband performing an illegal act. The court seems to have ignored the fact that what the wife did was against the law so I suppose using a video camera in such a way might be advisable only if you're female... . If she's holding the camera at times.....

28th April 2012, 09:54 AM	#100
Smackety Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 1,145	Originally Posted by JJM 777 It is well known that all of these have happened, and more than that. A rape actually happened but it is unclear who did it, someone must go to jail and the wrong guy goes. Consensual sex later blamed as rape by the woman (Assange, anyone?), 10 years later the woman gets religious and confesses. And so on... So your only example is the Assange case? He was not charged with rape, so I don't see how it is even relevant?

28th April 2012, 09:56 AM	#101
applecorped Rotten to the Core Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 10,688	It's the opposite of prosent.
	__________________ All You Need Is Love.

28th April 2012, 11:07 AM	#102
squareone Scholar Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 91	Consent? I know it when I see it!
squareone Scholar Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 91

28th April 2012, 02:10 PM	#103
Autolite Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 1,489	Originally Posted by mijopaalmc That's the kind of attitude that is downright disgusting in its sexism. Why do you assume that women are capricious and out to get men? You'll have to excuse me, but my comments and attitude are only the result of direct personal experience and observation...
	__________________ "When they come around sweet talkin', don't listen" - Willie Stark

28th April 2012, 02:26 PM	#104
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Originally Posted by mijopaalmc That's the kind of attitude that is downright disgusting in its sexism. Why do you assume that women are capricious and out to get men? It's not a statement about women; it's a statement about a system that eschews objective evidence of consent at the time for subjective evidence of consent as one party claims later. A lot of people regret sexual behavior after-the-fact; it's unfortunate, then, that some feel the need to assuage that regret by shifting the blame for the act to someone else.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853

28th April 2012, 02:33 PM	#105
Professor Yaffle Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Emily's shop Posts: 15,357	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ It's not a statement about women; it's a statement about a system that eschews objective evidence of consent at the time for subjective evidence of consent as one party claims later. A lot of people regret sexual behavior after-the-fact; it's unfortunate, then, that some feel the need to assuage that regret by shifting the blame for the act to someone else. Yeah this all pervasive attitude that is the cause of such a high prosecution and conviction rates in rape cases. I know exactly what you mean. The woman is always believed, no matter what. This culture just has to be changed. * Professor Yaffle can't find the sarcasm font
	__________________ I think you'll find it's a little bit more complicated than that. My blog "Well I think I've made it abundantly clear in this thread I have no idea what I'm talking about..." - truethat

28th April 2012, 02:38 PM	#106
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Originally Posted by Professor Yaffle Yeah this all pervasive attitude that is the cause of such a high prosecution and conviction rates in rape cases. I know exactly what you mean. The woman is always believed, no matter what. This culture just has to be changed. I know; it's pretty terrible that we don't live in a culture where whatever women say about men is just automatically believed. After all, none of us knows a woman who is at all unstable or vindictive (or who is encouraged to be so by her friends and family); none of us know men and women who try to use the legal system to get back emotionally at others (such as by threatening child custody). In fact, the more frequently we convict men based on women's words alone, with no corroborating evidence, the safer our society will be -- it's not as though a rape accusation has any noticeable effect on a man's reputation, livelihood, or personal safety. Why should rape be treated on the basis of real evidence, like all other crimes?
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Last edited by AvalonXQ; 28th April 2012 at 04:27 PM.

28th April 2012, 03:12 PM	#107
mijopaalmc Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 4,638	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ I know; it's pretty terrible that we don't live in a culture where whatever women say about men is just automatically believed. After all, done of us knows a woman who is at all unstable or vindictive (or who is encouraged to be so by her friends and family); none of us know men and women who try to use the legal system to get back emotionally at others (such as by threatening child custody). In fact, the more frequently we convict men based on women's words alone, with no corroborating evidence, the safer our society will be -- it's not as though a rape accusation has any noticeable effect on a man's reputation, livelihood, or personal safety. Why should rape be treated on the basis of real evidence, like all other crimes? You obviously missed the sarcasm. Nonetheless, your assertion that rape is treated any differently than any other crime is false. Because the standard of evidence for a conviction in any criminal action is "beyond a reasonable", all that the prosecution has to do is present a case that is more compelling than that of the defense and that stand up under the defense's scrutiny. The argument that the prosecution presents doesn't even have to be true insofar as, even if the defendant did commit the crime, the prosecution's argument doesn't have to an account of the crime as it was actually in every detail; the prosecution's argument just has to be a plausible explanation for the physical and narrative evidence. In any case, you and JJM 777 are applying a standard of proof to rape cases that the criminal justice system does not apply to the prosecution of any other criminal action. Both of you are, in other words, treating rape as special and then trying to blame the criminal justice system for doing so.
mijopaalmc Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 4,638

28th April 2012, 03:15 PM	#108
mijopaalmc Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 4,638	Originally Posted by Autolite You'll have to excuse me, but my comments and attitude are only the result of direct personal experience and observation... The plural of anecdote is not evidence.
mijopaalmc Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 4,638

28th April 2012, 03:24 PM	#109
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Originally Posted by mijopaalmc Nonetheless, your assertion that rape is treated any differently than any other crime is false. Clearly you are unaware of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which specifically and explicitly treat rape different from any other crime* by excluding relevant evidence , as well as including evidence we don't otherwise ever allow in court -- provisions that were decried by legal scholars upon their enactment for privileging sexual assault above other crimes. These changes to the FRE were made by Congress for entirely political reasons, with no evidentiary justification backing them up, because of the stigma carried by those accusated of sexual assault. How much of this were you aware of before now? Quote: Because the standard of evidence for a conviction in any criminal action is "beyond a reasonable", all that the prosecution has to do is present a case that is more compelling than that of the defense and that stand up under the defense's scrutiny. Clearly you are unaware of the standard of evidence in criminal cases, as your description of it isn't even a little bit legally accurate. *To be precise, one other crime is given the same special status.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Last edited by AvalonXQ; 28th April 2012 at 03:32 PM.

28th April 2012, 03:44 PM	#110
mijopaalmc Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 4,638	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ Clearly you are unaware of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which specifically and explicitly treat rape different from any other crime* by excluding relevant evidence , as well as including evidence we don't otherwise ever allow in court -- provisions that were decried by legal scholars upon their enactment for privileging sexual assault above other crimes. These changes to the FRE were made by Congress for entirely political reasons, with no evidentiary justification backing them up, because of the stigma carried by those accusated of sexual assault. How much of this were you aware of before now? You're going to need to be more specific, because the exclusions that you refer preclude the use of "evidence" that is irrelevant to the alleged crime. Originally Posted by AvalonXQ Clearly you are unaware of the standard of evidence in criminal cases, as your description of it isn't even a little bit legally accurate. So you are saying that the standard for a criminal conviction is not that the prosecution has demonstrated that the defendant could have committed the alleged crime beyond a reasonable doubt? Originally Posted by AvalonXQ *To be precise, one other crime is given the same special status. You are aware that the recidivism rate for sex crimes is significantly higher than that of other crimes?
mijopaalmc Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 4,638

28th April 2012, 04:23 PM	#111
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Originally Posted by mijopaalmc You're going to need to be more specific, because the exclusions that you refer preclude the use of "evidence" that is irrelevant to the alleged crime. Again, you're showing your ignorance. These FRE sections specifically exclude evidence relevant to the crime if that evidence happens to fall into certain categories, while including evidence of unproved accusations of similar offenses. These are rules that don't even apply to murder; only to sexual assault and child molestation, and only because, culturally, those are "icky" crimes where the perps don't deserve the same fair treatment. Anyway, your claim that rape is treated the same as other crimes is explicitly demonstrated to be false. Do you admit your mistake, or at least your previous ignorance of these facts? Or do you ignore the issue because being right is more important than arriving at the truth? Quote: You are aware that the recidivism rate for sex crimes is significantly higher than that of other crimes? Care to cite your sources for that? It's a common myth, but entirely false; in point of fact, sexual assault has the lowest recidivism rate other than murder. Here is a good place to start; note that less-than-10% recidivism rate for sexual assault versus the 40% or higher general recidivism rate.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Last edited by AvalonXQ; 28th April 2012 at 04:25 PM.

28th April 2012, 04:29 PM	#112
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Originally Posted by mijopaalmc So you are saying that the standard for a criminal conviction is not that the prosecution has demonstrated that the defendant could have committed the alleged crime beyond a reasonable doubt? No; I am saying that your description of this as... Quote: all that the prosecution has to do is present a case that is more compelling than that of the defense and that stand up under the defense's scrutiny ... is entirely wrong. What you're describing there is called "a preponderence of the evidence" -- a different, lower standard of proof that is not the standard in criminal cases.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853

28th April 2012, 04:46 PM	#113
mijopaalmc Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 4,638	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ No; I am saying that your description of this as... ... is entirely wrong. What you're describing there is called "a preponderence of the evidence" -- a different, lower standard of proof that is not the standard in criminal cases. Then how would you describe "reasonable doubt"?
mijopaalmc Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 4,638

28th April 2012, 04:49 PM	#114
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Originally Posted by mijopaalmc Then how would you describe "reasonable doubt"? "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt" means, there must not be any doubt that would affect a reasonable person's belief that the defendent is guilty. This isn't the law, but I put it this way -- if there is any explanation that a reasonable person could accept as supported by the facts where the defendant is not guilty, then the defendant is not guilty. Yes, this is a very high standard... and, honestly, the privacy and lack of physically identifiable harm characterizing many sexual assault crimes will mean that, very often, this standard cannot be met. While this is unfortunate, it is also not something that we should try to fix by changing the rules to lean any harder on the accused, because our rules are in place to protect the innocent. Sexual assault charges are not magically immune from being leveled falsely, accidentally or maliciously.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Last edited by AvalonXQ; 28th April 2012 at 04:54 PM.

28th April 2012, 04:55 PM	#115
mijopaalmc Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 4,638	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt" means, there must not be any doubt that would affect a reasonable person's belief that the defendent is guilty. This isn't the law, but I put it this way -- if there is any explanation that a reasonable person could accept as supported by the facts where the defendant is not guilty, then the defendant is not guilty. I could claim I misspoke (mistyped), but that would just make it seem that I was trying to weasel my way out of being wrong. I understood what I said about reasonable doubt to be equivalent to what you said, but, if you didn't understand it the same way, I was not communicating effectively. Thanks for the clarification.
mijopaalmc Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 4,638