Skip to main content

View Diary: Solving Rape? - A Very Short Statement For Those Who Just Don't Get It! (358 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It is absolutely not hyperbole. (0+ / 0-)

    Witnesses to rape itself are exceedingly rare, to the point it's practically a red herring to bring the concept up.  And any person who only saw evidence "suggestive" that a rape took place is not sufficient for a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.

    Signs of struggle and trauma, including (but not limited to) vaginal or anal trauma ARE successfully used and admissible in court.
    To which the defense argues that the person likes rough sex.  Then the prosecution has to meet the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard about the victim's personal sexual preferances on that night, which is almost impossible to meet.
    If that evidence was so easily refuted with bogus claims, that wouldn't be the case.
    Which is precisely why only the tiniest fraction of rapes end up with the perpetrator in prison, in stark contrast to other crimes.  This is the problem you're failing to acknowledge.

    And to reiterate: the beyond a reasonable doubt standard is rarely used to establish consent in criminal law, generally confined to rape cases.  So it's simply a harmonization of law to move to the standard you'd see in other types of defense claims.  Because that's what "she consented" is - a defense claim.

    •  I'm not buying your claim (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      soros, Sparhawk

      That physical evidence of bodily harm is that easily refuted with ridiculous claims. If it were then hospitals and law enforcement wouldn't go to such lengths to gather forensic evidence of physical trauma.

      Can you cite which state laws give special requirements for prosecuting rape cases?

      Please proceed, Governor.

      by USArmyParatrooper on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 06:50:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Believe what you want. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        As a general rule, law enforcement doesn't go to great lengths because most rape cases don't even go to trial because the odds of conviction are so low.  And most rapes aren't even reported for exactly the same reason, victims know that odds are nothing will come of reporting it.  Even the "great lengths" statement is not accurate.  Your standard rape kit doesn't include an immediate test for date rape drugs, for example, just sample collection - but unless analyzed immediately, date rape drugs and their metabolic byproducts typically break down.  And about 40% of rape kits in the US are never even analyzed at all, for the same above reason.

        As for specific state laws, I recommend reading the report I linked earlier on the subject.

        •  Or... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          You could just cite the laws if they're in the report. Which laws mandate special requirements for prosecuting rspe cases? Cite the laws.

          Just for clarification, do you agree or disagree that sexual contact and the woman's accusation (alone) should not be enough for a guilty verdict?

          Please proceed, Governor.

          by USArmyParatrooper on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 09:28:33 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Of course an accusation alone shouldn't be enough (0+ / 0-)

            to convict.  But neither should saying "it was consensual" by itself be enough to acquit.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site