3 ms·
As often as not — more often than not — her state of intoxication is somehow construed as a mitigating factor. "How do we know she didn't consent, but couldn't
by rosser 9y ago
As often as not — more often than not — her state of intoxication is somehow construed as a mitigating factor. "How do we know she didn't consent, but couldn't remember, because she was so drunk?"
And that happens in places where it's prima facie rape to have sex with someone who's too intoxicated to meaningfully consent. How is that not an impossible double standard?
- bufferoverflow 9y agoThat's not how it works. If there's evidence of intercourse, and the girl claims she didn't consent, in the overall majority of cases the guy is screwed, even if she is lying. You're 10 times more likely to be exonerated for murder, than for a false rape allegation. There's no double standard - the burden of proof is on the prosecution, as it should be. And you still keep dodging the question - what exactly do you propose?
- joshuamorton 9y agoThis is a relatively incredible set of claims. Care to back them up? Specifically the 10x more likely to be exonerated of murder than rape, and the more surprising claim that a majority of false rape claims end in the guy being screwed, by which I assume you mean jailtime. All of the evidence I've seen directly contradicts both of those assertions, so I'd like to know how you concluded that.
- rosser 9y ago> 10 times more likely > in the overall majority of cases [Citations needed] Because the actual formal-accusation:conviction statistics completely disagree with you. Only something like 25% of reported rapes in the US result in an arrest — let alone prosecution or conviction.
- naasking 9y agoI think you and the other poster are misconstruing the claims the OP made. He specifically compared false rape in his 10x claim, not all rape as you are. I don't know if this claim is true. Furthermore, he specifically said that if there's evidence of intercourse, the guy is screwed in a rape accusation, where you're talking about all rape charges regardless of the availability of evidence. This claim appears to be plausible.
- joshuamorton 9y agoIt's not: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/millionaire-ehsan-abdulaziz-who-said-he-accidentally-tripped-and-penetrated-teen-is-cleared-of-rape-a6774946.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/millionaire-ehsan... And that's just the one I happen to remember because of the ridiculous excuse. I'm sure cursory research would dig up more. None of the claims made in that post are plausible.
- naasking 9y agoYour response smacks of the typical over confidence of jury trials with surprising outcomes, like how people think the McDonald's coffee verdict was ridiculous until they actually learn all of the facts. The jury deliberated on this rape case for 30 minutes on all of the evidence and apparently easily reached a not guilty verdict, but this is apparently evidence of a grand conpsiracy rather than the more reasonable conclusion that the facts reported in this article do not convey the whole story.
- joshuamorton 9y agoI think that comparing that case and the McDonald's coffee case is ridiculous. You're correct, we weren't in the courtroom, but that doesn't make juries infallible.
- naasking 9y agoI'm not comparing them, I'm comparing your arguments against this case to the same arguments made about the McDonald's case. It's not about the cases themselves, but our ignorance of them.
- joshuamorton 9y agoExcept that I'm not equally ignorant, given that we know the defenses argument, and it's ridiculous.