Define Consent.

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by JJM 777

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.

Evidence?

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by JJM 777

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.

Again, do you have anything that isn't simply copying the story line of some badly written fiction?

[JJM 777]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

do you have any recent cites for a case where all parties agreed it was consensual adult sex being successfully prosecuted as rape?

http://www.king5.com/news/crime/Rape...145775175.html

Originally Posted by crimresearch

Again, do you have anything that isn't simply copying the story line of some badly written fiction?

A classical case from Finnish crime history, happened some 10 years ago: Two persons (a man and a woman) entered the home of a third person, and murdered him with a gunshot. Afterwards the police were able to prove that the murder took place while the two were in the house, and noone else was in the house at that time. But the two persons accused each other: each of them denied having any foreknowledge of the murder plan, and said that the other one committed the murder. Eventually the woman was convicted for murder and the man released, based only on the path travelled by the bullet, which coincided with the shoulder height of the woman. Personally I would not accept this as conclusive evidence, because a taller person can stand or walk in a lower position than completely upright. To me it is perfectly possible that the man could have fired the gunshot from a height that matches the shoulder height of the woman.

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by JJM 777

http://www.king5.com/news/crime/Rape...145775175.html


A classical case from Finnish crime history, happened some 10 years ago: Two persons (a man and a woman) entered the home of a third person, and murdered him with a gunshot. Afterwards the police were able to prove that the murder took place while the two were in the house, and noone else was in the house at that time. But the two persons accused each other: each of them denied having any foreknowledge of the murder plan, and said that the other one committed the murder. Eventually the woman was convicted for murder and the man released, based only on the path travelled by the bullet, which coincided with the shoulder height of the woman. Personally I would not accept this as conclusive evidence, because a taller person can stand or walk in a lower position than completely upright. To me it is perfectly possible that the man could have fired the gunshot from a height that matches the shoulder height of the woman.

So you are just playing childish word games to cover up the fact that your assertions are simply nonsense.

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by JJM 777

A classical case from Finnish crime history, happened some 10 years ago: Two persons (a man and a woman) entered the home of a third person, and murdered him with a gunshot. Afterwards the police were able to prove that the murder took place while the two were in the house, and noone else was in the house at that time. But the two persons accused each other: each of them denied having any foreknowledge of the murder plan, and said that the other one committed the murder. Eventually the woman was convicted for murder and the man released, based only on the path travelled by the bullet, which coincided with the shoulder height of the woman. Personally I would not accept this as conclusive evidence, because a taller person can stand or walk in a lower position than completely upright. To me it is perfectly possible that the man could have fired the gunshot from a height that matches the shoulder height of the woman.

For someone who is sp eager to take a supposedly science-basef approach to reviewing age of consent laws, you are awfully quick to dismiss forensic science when it conflicts with your own distorted notions of how justice system should work.

If the angle of entry showed that it was phisically impossible for the man to have shot the victim and there were no other people in the house, how would you explain the dead body?

[JJM 777]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

If the angle of entry showed that it was phisically impossible for the man to have shot the victim and there were no other people in the house

The angle of entry indicates the height from which the shot was fired, and it coincided with the shoulder height of the woman, when standing upright -- and with the shoulder height of the man, when not standing fully upright. You see, it does not prove that the woman fired the shot.

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by JJM 777

http://www.king5.com/news/crime/Rape...145775175.html


A classical case from Finnish crime history, happened some 10 years ago: Two persons (a man and a woman) entered the home of a third person, and murdered him with a gunshot. Afterwards the police were able to prove that the murder took place while the two were in the house, and noone else was in the house at that time. But the two persons accused each other: each of them denied having any foreknowledge of the murder plan, and said that the other one committed the murder. Eventually the woman was convicted for murder and the man released, based only on the path travelled by the bullet, which coincided with the shoulder height of the woman. Personally I would not accept this as conclusive evidence, because a taller person can stand or walk in a lower position than completely upright. To me it is perfectly possible that the man could have fired the gunshot from a height that matches the shoulder height of the woman.

Perhaps the woman involved had a better motive, or she was subjected to a nitrate test and came out positive, or the ammo in the weapon had her fingerprints.

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by JJM 777

The angle of entry indicates the height from which the shot was fired, and it coincided with the shoulder height of the woman, when standing upright -- and with the shoulder height of the man, when not standing fully upright. You see, it does not prove that the woman fired the shot.

And the gunshot residue pattern indicates where the gun was fired. You are seriously grasping at straw in you claim that the forenaoc science was not convincing, especially since your information seems to be, at best, second-hand as you have only one piece which you sre criticizing.

[AvalonXQ]

Under felony murder law in the U.S., I suspect they both would have been convicted.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by JJM 777

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.

That is precisely how criminal law does not work, which is why I was calling mijopaalmc out for what I see as an inaccurate description.

Because a reasonable person could believe that the counter-evidence is what happened, there is a "reasonable doubt", and so the perp walks.

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

That is precisely how criminal law does not work, which is why I was calling mijopaalmc out for what I see as an inaccurate description.


Because a reasonable person could believe that the counter-evidence is what happened, there is a "reasonable doubt", and so the perp walks.

What I was trying to say about reasonable doubt is that the prosecution has to construct a case that is reasonably believed to be true, and the defense has to introduce a reasonable jusitification to doubt the truth of the prosecution's construction of its case.

The concept I was trying to elaborate on was that of reasonability. A reasonable objection to the angle of the entry wound precluding a specific suspect is that one or the other of the suspects could have fired from a not fully upright position. An unreasonable objection would be that the gravitational field inside the house was significantly stronger than anywhere else on Earth. However, JJM 777's rejection the conviction based on the above reasonable objection is itself ubreasonable because it rests on the assumption that the angle of entry was the only piece of evidence that distinguished between the two suspects and his information doesn't seem to be first-hand.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by JJM 777

http://www.king5.com/news/crime/Rape...145775175.html

Wow. What a case.

Originally Posted by Associated Press article

The Cowlitz County prosecutor says she won't charge a Longview woman who admitted she lied when she said her father raped her -- sending him to prison for more than nine years.
Prosecutor Sue Baur says charging Cassandra Kennedy might discourage girls from reporting sexual assaults.
...
Cassandra Kennedy says she lied because she was disappointed in her father after her parents divorced.

Good going, prosecutor. If I were a woman angry or disappointed in a male acquaintance or relative, it's good to know I can lie to put them in jail without worrying about the justice system ever punishing me for it.

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Wow. What a case.




Good going, prosecutor. If I were a woman angry or disappointed in a male acquaintance or relative, it's good to know I can lie to put them in jail without worrying about the justice system ever punishing me for it.

You act as if there wasn't a trial and the man was summarily imprisoned on the word of the girl.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

You act as if there wasn't a trial and the man was summarily imprisoned on the word of the girl.

You act as though a man wasn't put on trial, for a crime he didn't commit, based solely on the testimony of a girl who was lying.

Are you serioiusly defending the decision not to prosecute someone who maliciously lies about a foul crime to destroy someone else's life?

Rape is a horrible crime; do you not find those who falsely accuse of rape to be horrifying?

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by JJM 777

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.

This standard of proof is called "preponderance of the evidence" or "balance of probabilities" and only applies in civil cases (which are about money).

In criminal cases, the standard is the higher "reasonable doubt". This is harder to define (what is "reasonable"?). It is always possible that a doppelganger stepped in at the last possible moment and committed the actual crime but that would hardly be considered a "reasonable" doubt.

"Reasonable doubt" means that if you have a "reasonable" cause to doubt the accused's guilt then you must acquit.

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

You act as though a man wasn't put on trial, for a crime he didn't commit, based solely on the testimony of a girl who was lying.

Really, where did I do that?

You, on the other completely ignored the fact that the man was given a trial in which a jury of his peers was convinced that he had committed the alleged crime. That someone can be falsely accused, convicted, and imprisoned is a fact of our justice system. Your and JJM 777's insistence that rape is rape is some how unique is the above obscures the fact that false accusations, convictions, and imprisonments occur for all crimes and no-one suggest that the laws themselves are necessarily unjust.

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Are you serioiusly defending the decision not to prosecute someone who maliciously lies about a foul crime to destroy someone else's life?

Have you stopped beating your wife?

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Rape is a horrible crime; do you not find those who falsely accuse of rape to be horrifying?

If rape is such a horrible crime, why do you spend so much time trying to convince people that women are lying b****** who are out to get men?

Seriously, no-one has denied that false accusations, convictions, and imprisonments occur or are horrible miscarriages of justice. However, you and JJM 777 have striven to demonstrate that false accusations, convictions, and imprisonments stem from rape laws themselves rather than a systemic problem with the legal system.

[JJM 777]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

you claim that the forenaoc science was not convincing

Doubting the guilt of the woman is not originally my claim, it is doubted also by the policemen who investigated the case.

The case is from the yearbook of Scandinavian Police, which annually showcases the most interesting real crime cases from Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Iceland. Unlike press reports, this book is written by the policemen themselves who were involved in investigating a case. Articles in this book often end with conclusions of the authors, which do not always coincide with the conclusions of the court process. Breivik will certainly be included in next year´s edition.

Originally Posted by BStrong

Perhaps the woman involved had a better motive

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

there is a "reasonable doubt", and so the perp walks.

Originally Posted by psionl0

"Reasonable doubt" means that if you have a "reasonable" cause to doubt the accused's guilt then you must acquit.

Yep. But in reality, the jury votes and the case is closed.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

If rape is such a horrible crime, why do you spend so much time trying to convince people that women are lying b****** who are out to get men?

A better question is, why do you feel comfortable defending those women who actually do falsely accuse men of rape to destroy them?

[katy_did]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Good going, prosecutor. If I were a woman angry or disappointed in a male acquaintance or relative, it's good to know I can lie to put them in jail without worrying about the justice system ever punishing me for it.

It should be remembered that the woman was an 11 year old child at the time, not an adult.

I'm not getting how that case is relevant to the general argument JJM 777 is trying to make, since this obviously isn't a situation where two people had consensual sex and one later accused the other of rape, leading to them being convicted. If it raises questions about anything (and without knowing much more about the specifics than we do, it's impossible to say) it would be about the way that child sex abuse or child abuse generally is dealt with by the courts.

As mijopaalmc says, I'm really not seeing how rape is in any way unique in terms of the likelihood or otherwise of wrongful convictions. If the sole evidence is one person's word against another, it's virtually impossible to reach the beyond reasonable doubt standard and the person will be acquitted. In the vast majority of cases, that's exactly what seems to happen. Certainly no one's presented any evidence to suggest otherwise.

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by JJM 777

Doubting the guilt of the woman is not originally my claim, it is doubted also by the policemen who investigated the case.

The case is from the yearbook of Scandinavian Police, which annually showcases the most interesting real crime cases from Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Iceland. Unlike press reports, this book is written by the policemen themselves who were involved in investigating a case. Articles in this book often end with conclusions of the authors, which do not always coincide with the conclusions of the court process. Breivik will certainly be included in next year´s edition.

So you really have at best second-hand reports of what went into investigating the crime and are therefore parroting what the authors said without independently confirming the fact of the case.

Looks like your skepticism extends only extends as far as your own preconceptions. Kudos!

Originally Posted by JJM 777

Yep. But in reality, the jury votes and the case is closed.

Yeah, that is how trial-by-jury works generally.

Do you not have a trial-by-jury criminal justice system in Finland?

As of this moment, your criticisms of the US criminal justice system in general and rape laws and prosecution in particular come off as sexism with a healthy dose of anti-Americanism thrown in for good measure. None of your objections are unique to the way the US conducts its criminal justice system; you have simply singled-out the US for particular criticism.

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

A better question is, why do you feel comfortable defending those women who actually do falsely accuse men of rape to destroy them?

Have you stopped beating your wife long enough to read what you actually wrote?

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Good going, prosecutor. If I were a woman angry or disappointed in a male acquaintance or relative, it's good to know I can lie to put them in jail without worrying about the justice system ever punishing me for it.

You all but say outright that the only thing that prevents women from making false rape accusations is the fear of criminal prosecution and that, since the county prosecutor refuses to bring charges against false accussers, women will continue to use false rape accusations to get even with men whom the women are too petty or malicious to confront head-on.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

You all but say outright that the only thing that prevents women from making false rape accusations is the fear of criminal prosecution <snip>

No, I say outright that fear of criminal prosecution should deter false rape accusations, but doesn't when corrupt politicians refuse to crack down on these life-destroying criminals.

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

No, I say outright that fear of criminal prosecution should deter false rape accusations, but doesn't when corrupt politicians refuse to crack down on these life-destroying criminals.

Are children subject to perjury charge?

The particular case that JJM 777 selected is not even an example of a women lyong about being raped; it' an example of a girl lying about being sexually abused, and, in JJM 777's pedophile apologist alternate universe, had the girl's accusations been true, they still would have been child sexual abuse, as she was 11 at the time she alleged the abuse to have occurred.

If you want to talk about rape, why not find an example of a woman who recanted a rape allegation?

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by JJM 777

Doubting the guilt of the woman is not originally my claim, it is doubted also by the policemen who investigated the case.

The case is from the yearbook of Scandinavian Police, which annually showcases the most interesting real crime cases from Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Iceland. Unlike press reports, this book is written by the policemen themselves who were involved in investigating a case. Articles in this book often end with conclusions of the authors, which do not always coincide with the conclusions of the court process. Breivik will certainly be included in next year´s edition.




Yep. But in reality, the jury votes and the case is closed.

Again, you are blowing up something that might happen if all safeguards fail (as they do in the movies, and much more rarely do in real life), and trying to pretend it is the way things routinely function.

Your premises that it is a given that 'only in rape cases' is circumstantial evidence a deciding factor, and that mutually consensual adult sex is successfully prosecuted as rape, remain unproven.

[Professor Yaffle]

I've got a good case of a woman being jailed for falsely retracting true rape allegations....

Quote:

A woman jailed for "falsely retracting" allegations that she had been raped six times by her husband will today lodge an appeal against her eight-month prison sentence.

There was outcry last Friday when the 28-year-old was sent to jail for perverting the course of justice after she decided to withdraw the rape allegations - not, she said, because they were false, but because her estranged husband and his sister had "'emotionally blackmailed" her into doing so.

Campaigners have called for her immediate release, saying the prosecution, which is believed to be a legal first, sent out a "chilling message" to rape victims and ignored the pressures placed on abused women by the perpetrators of such crimes.

The woman's solicitor told the Guardian today her legal representatives were preparing an appeal application against her sentence. They are also applying for her to be released on bail from Styal prison, where she is being held pending the appeal. Though unusual, it is possible for a judge to grant bail to convicted prisoners waiting for their appeal hearings.

Holly Dustin, director of the End Violence Against Women Coalition, said: "Imprisoning a woman for a 'false retraction' of a rape allegation sends out a chilling message that the criminal justice system is still in the dark ages in relation to sexual violence and does not understand the pressure women come under from perpetrators during the legal process."

She added that the move could make victims less likely to report rape to police if they felt they could themselves be dragged before the courts and face a jail sentence if they did not proceed with the allegations.

The system is just sooooo biased against men when it comes to rape.....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/no...e-woman-appeal

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

Your premises that it is a given that 'only in rape cases' is circumstantial evidence a deciding factor, and that mutually consensual adult sex is successfully prosecuted as rape, remain unproven.

What I would like to know is how, in JJM 777's mind, actual consensual "rough sex" differs from a rapist beating the victim and claiming that the victim "wanted it rough".

Because that never happens.

[JJM 777]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

What I would like to know is how, in JJM 777's mind, actual consensual "rough sex" differs from a rapist beating the victim and claiming that the victim "wanted it rough".

I am not well versed in the details of how rough S/M sex can be. Certainly the roughest consensual sex can be essentially rougher than the smoothest rape, which can involve no physical roughness at all if the victim is scared and uses submission as a survival strategy.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by Professor Yaffle

I've got a good case of a woman being jailed for falsely retracting true rape allegations....

The system is just sooooo biased against men when it comes to rape.....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/no...e-woman-appeal

Given that the woman in question claimed she had been raped six times, then claimed the rapes happened but she wanted to drop charges, then claimed she had lied and the rapes never happened at all, then went back to her second story, what do you want the police to do?

Clearly she was lying at some point, either to try to convict an innocent person or to try to get a guilty person off. Either way she attempted to pervert the course of justice and we shouldn't tolerate that from anyone, male or female, rape victim or non-rape-victim.

[JJM 777]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

she was lying at some point (...) to pervert the course of justice and we shouldn't tolerate that from anyone

Quite suitably, the title of this thread is "define consent".

The woman was under pressure / blackmailing during the court process, so it is not clear that she "consented" to changing her story, but rather was forced / threatened / pressured / blackmailed to do so.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by JJM 777

Quite suitably, the title of this thread is "define consent".

The woman was under pressure / blackmailing during the court process, so it is not clear that she "consented" to changing her story, but rather was forced / threatened / pressured / blackmailed to do so.

If that's the case and she genuinely had no choice then hopefully she should be able to establish reasonable doubt upon those grounds.

However there's certainly a basis for a charge and a trial if a person accuses someone else of a serious crime, then says they lied in their accusation, then says they didn't lie. You're not supposed to lie about such issues even if you are being pressured to do so.

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

Given that the woman in question claimed she had been raped six times, then claimed the rapes happened but she wanted to drop charges, then claimed she had lied and the rapes never happened at all, then went back to her second story, what do you want the police to do?

Clearly she was lying at some point, either to try to convict an innocent person or to try to get a guilty person off. Either way she attempted to pervert the course of justice and we shouldn't tolerate that from anyone, male or female, rape victim or non-rape-victim.

Yep, there's absolutely nothing plausible about a woman having been raped six time, but nit wanting to go through a trial whereher actions are used to discredit her claims.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

Yep, there's absolutely nothing plausible about a woman having been raped six time, but nit wanting to go through a trial whereher actions are used to discredit her claims.

Let me explain the situation to you again.

A woman tells police she is raped six times. This is not a problem. It's what you are supposed to do (if in fact you have been raped).

Then later she says she wants to drop the charges, although she really was raped. This too is not a problem. I wish people wouldn't do that, because it's important to deter rapists and this encourages them, but whatever.

Then, and this is where you need to sit up and pay attention, she said she was never raped and that the had lied about it. This is a problem. She's just confessed to fingering an innocent person for six counts of rape. That's an enormously serious offence.

Then she changed her story back to "Actually I was raped but I still don't want to press charges". Which means she confessed to a different offence, lying to try to get a criminal off the hook, while retracting her earlier confession.

Either she lied about the original charges, or she lied when they said the rapes never happened. Either way she lied to police about a serious criminal matter. Do you understand why that is behaviour we ought to punish?

You seem to think that the "rape victim card" is an all-purpose get-out-of-jail-free card and that just by alleging you were raped (before a court even hears the case!) you should be able to pervert the course of justice without any consequences. That's crazy.

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

Let me explain the situation to you again.

A woman tells police she is raped six times. This is not a problem. It's what you are supposed to do (if in fact you have been raped).

Then later she says she wants to drop the charges, although she really was raped. This too is not a problem. I wish people wouldn't do that, because it's important to deter rapists and this encourages them, but whatever.

Then, and this is where you need to sit up and pay attention, she said she was never raped and that the had lied about it. This is a problem. She's just confessed to fingering an innocent person for six counts of rape. That's an enormously serious offence.

Then she changed her story back to "Actually I was raped but I still don't want to press charges". Which means she confessed to a different offence, lying to try to get a criminal off the hook, while retracting her earlier confession.

Either she lied about the original charges, or she lied when they said the rapes never happened. Either way she lied to police about a serious criminal matter. Do you understand why that is behaviour we ought to punish?

You seem to think that the "rape victim card" is an all-purpose get-out-of-jail-free card and that just by alleging you were raped (before a court even hears the case!) you should be able to pervert the course of justice without any consequences. That's crazy.

You obviously missed the part where she was being intimidated by the defendant.

[truethat]

What is this site's obsession with rape. Sheesh.


Consent if you are not sure, is not consent. Also many young men do not realize that having aex with an intoxicated woman can legally be considered rape. I tell them this all the time. I wish more young men were taught this because I think alcohol has a lot to do with confusion in sexual acts. Even if the woman is willing and consenting the court often will not recognize her ability to consent while drunk.

Two ways to look at it that might help. For a woman, because her consent is needed, anything that would nullify her ability to sign a contract would also mean she can't consent. Extreme fatigue, drunkenness, sleeping, drugs, emotional duress, fear, coercion etc etc etc.

For a man, rape is a criminal act. Any excuse that won't fly with a homicide won't work with rape.....etc I didn't know it was wrong, I thought she wanted me to kill her, I was drunk or on drugs, I was confused, etc etc etc.

This to me should be the full stop on consent instead of debating personal POV because they only add to the confusion and contribute to the social constructs.

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by truethat

What is this site's obsession with rape. Sheesh.


Consent if you are not sure, is not consent. Also many young men do not realize that having aex with an intoxicated woman can legally be considered rape. I tell them this all the time. I wish more young men were taught this because I think alcohol has a lot to do with confusion in sexual acts. Even if the woman is willing and consenting the court often will not recognize her ability to consent while drunk.

Two ways to look at it that might help. For a woman, because her consent is needed, anything that would nullify her ability to sign a contract would also mean she can't consent. Extreme fatigue, drunkenness, sleeping, drugs, emotional duress, fear, coercion etc etc etc.

For a man, rape is a criminal act. Any excuse that won't fly with a homicide won't work with rape.....etc I didn't know it was wrong, I thought she wanted me to kill her, I was drunk or on drugs, I was confused, etc etc etc.

This to me should be the full stop on consent instead of debating personal POV because they only add to the confusion and contribute to the social constructs.

Thanks for playing into heterosexist notions of rape.

[truethat]

That's very funny because when I started to post I did wonder if he meant it to be about female rape. But touche! Care to correct my post with some ideas! I truly admit to that flaw.

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by truethat

That's very funny because when I started to post I did wonder if he meant it to be about female rape. But touche! Care to correct my post with some ideas! I truly admit to that flaw.

I was just thinking that lack of consent is essential to rape regardless of the respective genders of the participants.

[truethat]

Unfortunately that's less likely to be an issue in the world. What is more likely to be an issue is a woman who recants her consent. As has been pointed out sometimes it can be false even if most cases are true. And so it is important for young men to always keep in mind that they are the ones committing the crime in the eyes of the law if they have sex with a drunk woman. In my personal opinion both are raping each other as I've posted many times before (this site is obsessed with discussing rape ) but that don't add up to a hill of beans if you are guy.

So following the above concept should help.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

You obviously missed the part where she was being intimidated by the defendant.

I also obviously missed where the claimed rape or the claimed intimidation had been examined in a court of law... can you point me to where it says that?

Or are you arguing that merely claiming to have been intimidated should be a get-out-of-jail-free card?

Call me crazy but I think if someone lies to police about a major crime there should at least be a trial to see what's what. If she had a gun to her head when she claimed the rapes never happened, fair enough, I hope that comes out at the trial. If not, then whether or not she was raped she's still guilty of lying to police about a major crime and being raped shouldn't be a get-out-of-jail-free card.

The idea that this sort of prosecution should deter women from reporting rapes is just asinine. It should deter women from lying to police, which is a damned good thing. I'm 100% in favour of support for the victims of sexual assault to make reporting the offence and seeing justice done as painless as possible for them, but that doesn't extend to allowing the victims of alleged sexual assault to lie to the police as much as they like and get away with it.

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

I also obviously missed where the claimed rape or the claimed intimidation had been examined in a court of law... can you point me to where it says that?

Or are you arguing that merely claiming to have been intimidated should be a get-out-of-jail-free card?

Call me crazy but I think if someone lies to police about a major crime there should at least be a trial to see what's what. If she had a gun to her head when she claimed the rapes never happened, fair enough, I hope that comes out at the trial. If not, then whether or not she was raped she's still guilty of lying to police about a major crime and being raped shouldn't be a get-out-of-jail-free card.

The idea that this sort of prosecution should deter women from reporting rapes is just asinine. It should deter women from lying to police, which is a damned good thing. I'm 100% in favour of support for the victims of sexual assault to make reporting the offence and seeing justice done as painless as possible for them, but that doesn't extend to allowing the victims of alleged sexual assault to lie to the police as much as they like and get away with it.

It's nice to see that you are doing everything in your power to exonerates rapists and normalize rape.

[truethat]

Um he did? That's what you got out of his post???????