5 ms·

> Rape cases continue to be notoriously difficult to prosecute and the onus of proof still too often falls on victims of sexual violence. The article stops sho

> Rape cases continue to be notoriously difficult to prosecute and the onus of proof still too often falls on victims of sexual violence. The article stops short of saying that plaintiffs should not have to prove an assault occured. Why beat around bush? I wholeheartedly agree and support this notion and I sincerely hope it will be signed into law at once. Maybe once we've watched the ensuing chaos for a bit we can return to reason and collectively move past tolerating destructive nonsense disguised as thought-terminating high ideals. Or maybe they want a surveillance state so total, the question of whether something occured isn't a question at all? Sounds good to me as well, let's try it. That's not it either? So what is it then? Besides the hapless vaguely activist undertones of this article, it was rather interesting. Could've done without the modern-day commentary though.

saagarjha 2y ago
Probably because it’s talking about a historical practice?
- chmod775 2y ago
  > Probably because it’s talking about a historical practice? The article is indeed talking about historical practices... while making explicit references to, and expressing opinion on, present day practices. What is it you are trying to say?
  - saagarjha 2y ago
    I think alluding to modern day problems without prescribing a solution is an appropriate level of exposition.
    - chmod775 2y ago
      > I think alluding to modern day problems The quoted part is not an allusion. Rather it's stating plainly that "rape is hard to prosecute", which is an opinion stated as fact, and it further opines that too many times the "onus of proof" falls on the victim of the alleged assault. > is an appropriate level of exposition. It's not exposition either. Rather than conveying information on the stated subject matter (a medieval practice), we are given opinions on something that had no bearing on it at all. The last two paragraphs are dedicated to circling back to the modern day. It's not exposition, not even just a comparison, it's the lesson the author wanted to teach.
      - lupusreal 2y ago
        They're an expert on medieval matters, so you should trust them when they opine on the present. Basic scientism, trust the experts.
        Oarch 2y ago
        Hmm, beg to disagree here. They're a freelance journalist writing a piece for AtlasObscura, a travel and trivia magazine. Surely a criminal law expert would be the appropriate person to comment.
Leonelf 2y ago
> I wholeheartedly agree and support this notion and I sincerely hope it will be signed into law at once. Why would you invert innocent until proven guilty for this particular matter but not others? And how exactly would the accused prove themselves innocent? Not having to prove an assault occured means that anyone could accuse anyone without reprimand. EDIT: I agree that there's a problem in society and sometimes law regarding cases like in the other post, where the jury sees clear evidence and pretends like "it isn't rape because she had a short skirt" etc, this is obviously wrong. But for cases where it's testimony against testimony, the only realistic approach is to pressure the perp until they admit to it. I don't see how the opposite would be viable.
fao_ 2y ago
A friend of mine was on a UK jury for a rape case. During the trial, every single piece of misinformation regarding rape was echoed by the jury. "She wanted it", "If she hadn't wanted it her body would have rejected it", and "That's not rape, if that's rape then what my husband's been doing to me for 20 years is rape", were all voiced by the jury at one point or another. Despite copious amounts of evidence, including video evidence, the man went free. I'm not sure how to fix the problem with the judicial system, but it's very, very clear that there is one. How can a system where criminals go free be called "justice"? Edit: An additional nice little statistic here is that within the UK, criminal drug possession is overwhelmingly prosecuted at much, much higher rates than robbery, mugging, etc. IIRC it's around 20% for possession and only 5% for theft, violence, arson or house invasion.
- dmurray 2y ago
  I can't think of any fairer way to decide whether a crime was committed than to have clear evidence, consensus on the facts, and a jury of your peers to decide whether the events were worthy of punishment. If there really was all this evidence and the jury overwhelmingly wanted to acquit...maybe there really wasn't a crime? The problematic cases are the other ones, the he-said-she-said ones, where even if the guy seems like a scumbag it's impossible to decide beyond reasonable doubt that he's the one lying.
  - fao_ 2y ago
    > If there really was all this evidence and the jury overwhelmingly wanted to acquit...maybe there really wasn't a crime? Juries are supposed to be impartial assessors of facts, none of these jurors were impartial, as they all carried various attitudes towards rape that blamed the victim rather than the perpetrator. IMO it speaks to the lack of education of the general populace and the lack of information and knowledge taught in the general school system about consent and rape. The actual act of rape, as it is described in the law, was committed, on video. The jury was blinded by their own personal beliefs — for the one juror, for example, she would have had to admit to herself that she was raped, that's a pretty terrifying reality to have to acknowledge. If you have your house broken into, and you are shot in the leg by an intruder, and it is caught on video. Subsequently a jury finds the person innocent because he is rich and well-liked. That person still committed an illegal act.

saagarjha 2y ago

Probably because it’s talking about a historical practice?

chmod775 2y ago
> Probably because it’s talking about a historical practice? The article is indeed talking about historical practices... while making explicit references to, and expressing opinion on, present day practices. What is it you are trying to say?
- saagarjha 2y ago
  I think alluding to modern day problems without prescribing a solution is an appropriate level of exposition.
  - chmod775 2y ago
    > I think alluding to modern day problems The quoted part is not an allusion. Rather it's stating plainly that "rape is hard to prosecute", which is an opinion stated as fact, and it further opines that too many times the "onus of proof" falls on the victim of the alleged assault. > is an appropriate level of exposition. It's not exposition either. Rather than conveying information on the stated subject matter (a medieval practice), we are given opinions on something that had no bearing on it at all. The last two paragraphs are dedicated to circling back to the modern day. It's not exposition, not even just a comparison, it's the lesson the author wanted to teach.
    - lupusreal 2y ago
      They're an expert on medieval matters, so you should trust them when they opine on the present. Basic scientism, trust the experts.
      - Oarch 2y ago
        Hmm, beg to disagree here. They're a freelance journalist writing a piece for AtlasObscura, a travel and trivia magazine. Surely a criminal law expert would be the appropriate person to comment.

Leonelf 2y ago

> I wholeheartedly agree and support this notion and I sincerely hope it will be signed into law at once. Why would you invert innocent until proven guilty for this particular matter but not others? And how exactly would the accused prove themselves innocent? Not having to prove an assault occured means that anyone could accuse anyone without reprimand. EDIT: I agree that there's a problem in society and sometimes law regarding cases like in the other post, where the jury sees clear evidence and pretends like "it isn't rape because she had a short skirt" etc, this is obviously wrong. But for cases where it's testimony against testimony, the only realistic approach is to pressure the perp until they admit to it. I don't see how the opposite would be viable.

fao_ 2y ago

A friend of mine was on a UK jury for a rape case. During the trial, every single piece of misinformation regarding rape was echoed by the jury. "She wanted it", "If she hadn't wanted it her body would have rejected it", and "That's not rape, if that's rape then what my husband's been doing to me for 20 years is rape", were all voiced by the jury at one point or another. Despite copious amounts of evidence, including video evidence, the man went free. I'm not sure how to fix the problem with the judicial system, but it's very, very clear that there is one. How can a system where criminals go free be called "justice"? Edit: An additional nice little statistic here is that within the UK, criminal drug possession is overwhelmingly prosecuted at much, much higher rates than robbery, mugging, etc. IIRC it's around 20% for possession and only 5% for theft, violence, arson or house invasion.

dmurray 2y ago
I can't think of any fairer way to decide whether a crime was committed than to have clear evidence, consensus on the facts, and a jury of your peers to decide whether the events were worthy of punishment. If there really was all this evidence and the jury overwhelmingly wanted to acquit...maybe there really wasn't a crime? The problematic cases are the other ones, the he-said-she-said ones, where even if the guy seems like a scumbag it's impossible to decide beyond reasonable doubt that he's the one lying.
- fao_ 2y ago
  > If there really was all this evidence and the jury overwhelmingly wanted to acquit...maybe there really wasn't a crime? Juries are supposed to be impartial assessors of facts, none of these jurors were impartial, as they all carried various attitudes towards rape that blamed the victim rather than the perpetrator. IMO it speaks to the lack of education of the general populace and the lack of information and knowledge taught in the general school system about consent and rape. The actual act of rape, as it is described in the law, was committed, on video. The jury was blinded by their own personal beliefs — for the one juror, for example, she would have had to admit to herself that she was raped, that's a pretty terrifying reality to have to acknowledge. If you have your house broken into, and you are shot in the leg by an intruder, and it is caught on video. Subsequently a jury finds the person innocent because he is rich and well-liked. That person still committed an illegal act.