EPTOn August 24 2012 05:04 nam nam wrote:
Which is also true about other crimes. Is rape special?
Which is also true about other crimes. Is rape special?
No, I specifically said that I generally am this way about every crime.
What is Rape? - Page 24
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
No, I specifically said that I generally am this way about every crime. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On August 24 2012 05:05 Djzapz wrote: No, I specifically said that I generally am this way about every crime. But you still have not addressed the concern that rape is exceptional when it comes to the impotency of the law. | ||
|
S:klogW
Austria657 Posts
On August 24 2012 04:59 Djzapz wrote: Just google it dude... Google: Man false accused rape Man falsely imprisoned rape It's not new The argument is getting lost to all the replies and side comments, Djzapz could you summarize your claims so we can argue for or against it. If it's a matter of opinion, we can all leave it at that. But if there are factual issues, then we can prove or disprove it. | ||
KwarK
United States41983 Posts
On August 24 2012 05:05 Djzapz wrote: No, I specifically said that I generally am this way about every crime. So if a woman was burgled you would advocate the defence lawyers of the alleged burglar bringing up her promiscuity in order to prove he was innocent? I just want to clarify that your stance is that you care so much about the legal system favouring the defendant and not convicting people that the promiscuous women must be humiliated to lower convictions. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On August 24 2012 05:06 DoubleReed wrote: But you still have not addressed the concern that rape is exceptional when it comes to the impotency of the law. I'm not familiar enough with it but I have to say that it's really unfortunate. However I can understand why the law is exceptionally bad when it comes down to rape, because of how hard it is to verify the evidence brought by both sides. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On August 24 2012 05:08 KwarK wrote: So if a woman was burgled you would advocate the defence lawyers of the alleged burglar bringing up her promiscuity in order to prove he was innocent? I just want to clarify that your stance is that you care so much about the legal system favouring the defendant and not convicting people that the promiscuous women must be humiliated to lower convictions. No =((( | ||
|
JinDesu
United States3990 Posts
On August 24 2012 05:06 S:klogW wrote: The argument is getting lost to all the replies and side comments, Djzapz could you summarize your claims so we can argue for or against it. If it's a matter of opinion, we can all leave it at that. But if there are factual issues, then we can prove or disprove it. Agreed with this - my understanding is that Djzapz feels that the current system can convict too many innocents, but his argued solution is faulty. The rest of us aren't for a system that convicts innocents; we just don't have exact solutions right now. The rest is just detracting from the intent of the thread. | ||
|
gedatsu
1286 Posts
On August 24 2012 04:54 JinDesu wrote:If a girl is under the influence of chemicals (drugs/alcohol), it's a no, regardless of what she says. This is an overarching application, as people respond differently to chemicals, and it's better safe than sorry. You can't be serious. Girls get drunk in order to have sex all the time. They also get drunk without planning to have sex and then change their minds; but willingly intoxicating yourself makes you morally responsible for the decisions you make during that intoxication. In both cases it's perfectly acceptable to have sex with them. | ||
|
Mercy13
United States718 Posts
Elements of Rape: Prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant: (1) performed an intentional touching of another person in order to obtain sexual gratiifcation, or to elicit a sexual response; AND (2) knew or should have known that the other person did not consent to the touching. Enhanced penalty if defendant: (1) Penetrates the other person (orally, anally, vaginally, etc.); (2) Uses force; (3) Explicly or implicately threatens to use force in such a way that a reasonable person would have felt some amount of coercion, no matter how minimal; (4) Injures the other person: OR (5) . . . ? The idea is to make it relatively straightforward to establish rape, but then have the penalty determined by the various enhancements (not necessarily in order). Potential problems: - I intentionally didn't define "sexual" in the first element because imo it's the kind of thing where you know it when you see it, but it's very difficult to define. Maybe someone else can come up with a better approach? - Enhancement (3) is the trickiest, and probably most controversial. I chose to argue for an objective "reasonable person standard," instead of a subjective standard based on the impressions of the victim, but I'm sure one can make a reasonable argument for the opposite approach. - I'm sure you guys can come up with others | ||
|
dani`
Netherlands2402 Posts
On August 24 2012 05:10 gedatsu wrote: You can't be serious. Girls get drunk in order to have sex all the time. They also get drunk without planning to have sex and then change their minds; but willingly intoxicating yourself makes you morally responsible for the decisions you make during that intoxication. In both cases it's perfectly acceptable to have sex with them. Uhm, taking advantage of drunk girls is not perfectly acceptable. | ||
|
KwarK
United States41983 Posts
I don't follow. I thought your stance was that justice should be perverted and spurious arguments should be included at the expense of promiscuous women in every crime to lower the conviction rate, both of innocent people and guilty. | ||
|
NicolBolas
United States1388 Posts
On August 24 2012 05:05 Djzapz wrote: No, I specifically said that I generally am this way about every crime. Really? So you believe that bringing what you yourself state is an invalid argument into any trial is a perfectly acceptable legal tactic. That accusing a murder victim's grieving family member of committing the crime without any evidence is a good and legitimate tactic. That bringing up a mugging victim's history of drug abuse is something that is reasonable in a mugging trial. And so forth. Because that's what happens when you open the door to a rape victim's sexual history. If you want to generalize that to every kind of trial, then you're basically saying that the defence has carte blance to present any fact, regardless of relevance to the actual crime under discussion. This means that anyone who society considers to have done something "bad" in their history will never be able to have justice done. If you have a history of drug abuse and someone robs you, forget ever getting justice. If you have a history of sexual promiscuity, something that is perfectly legal, you can be raped with impunity. Explain how this qualifies as "justice". On August 24 2012 05:09 Djzapz wrote: I'm not familiar enough with it but I have to say that it's really unfortunate. However I can understand why the law is exceptionally bad when it comes down to rape, because of how hard it is to verify the evidence brought by both sides. You're not familiar with the difficulty of prosecuting rape, yet you claim familiarity enough to be convinced that men are so frequently falsely accused, tried, and convicted of rape that we should allow nonsense arguments in trials to "balance" the unfairness. Maybe you should get some actual facts, rather than a couple of Google searches. | ||
|
JinDesu
United States3990 Posts
On August 24 2012 05:10 gedatsu wrote: You can't be serious. Girls get drunk in order to have sex all the time. They also get drunk without planning to have sex and then change their minds; but willingly intoxicating yourself makes you morally responsible for the decisions you make during that intoxication. In both cases it's perfectly acceptable to have sex with them. I will admit - that line is specifically for myself. I will not sleep with a girl who didn't say yes before, and throws herself on me after she is drunk. Girls can get drunk to have sex. Girls also do get drunk to have fun, socialize, etc. Just because a girl gets drunk does not mean she is capable of saying yes to sex. It's a very fine line. | ||
|
Crushinator
Netherlands2138 Posts
On August 24 2012 05:04 nam nam wrote: Which is also true about other crimes. Is rape special? Rape is special in that people are falsely accused of it, by the supposed victim, more than any other crime. It is the most convenient crime to get sympathy with, and the easiest to destroy someones reputation with. I would also imagine rape also often relies heavily on the testimony of the victim as evidence. Because it is so hard to prove rape, it may be that the standards of ''reasonable doubt'' are more lax than for other crimes. Leading to proportionally more falsely convicted people. I don't have much evidence for this hypothesis, and testing it would be hard, but it is atleast a reasoned one. I don't know how to improve the system, but changing it so that more of the burden of proof lies on the defendent seems unwise to me. | ||
|
gedatsu
1286 Posts
On August 24 2012 05:12 dani` wrote: Uhm, taking advantage of drunk girls is not perfectly acceptable. You can call it "taking advantage" all you want, it doesn't change the fact that they got drunk on purpose and therefore are responsible for their own bad decisions. | ||
|
ComaDose
Canada10352 Posts
On August 24 2012 05:16 Crushinator wrote: source?Rape is special in that people are falsely accused of it, by the supposed victim, more than any other crime. It is the most convenient crime to get sympathy with, and the easiest to destroy someones reputation with. source?I would also imagine rape also often relies heavily on the testimony of the victim as evidence. Because it is so hard to prove rape, it may be that the standards of ''reasonable doubt'' are more lax than for other crimes. Leading to proportionally more falsely convicted people. I don't have much evidence for this hypothesis, and testing it would be hard, but it is atleast a reasoned one. no you have NO evidence.I don't know how to improve the system, but changing it so that more of the burden of proof lies on the defendent seems unwise to me. thank heavens no one else wants to do that. | ||
|
KwarK
United States41983 Posts
On August 24 2012 05:16 Crushinator wrote: Rape is special in that people are falsely accused of it, by the supposed victim, more than any other crime. It is the most convenient crime to get sympathy with, and the easiest to destroy someones reputation with. I would also imagine rape also often relies heavily on the testimony of the victim as evidence. Because it is so hard to prove rape, it may be that the standards of ''reasonable doubt'' are more lax than for other crimes. Leading to proportionally more falsely convicted people. I don't have much evidence for this hypothesis, and testing it would be hard, but it is atleast a reasoned one. I don't know how to improve the system, but changing it so that more of the burden of proof lies on the defendent seems unwise to me. As the court failed to say to the misogynistic lawyer, justify your conclusions with evidence. | ||
|
AUFKLARUNG
Germany245 Posts
A legal definition of rape that could apply universally: 1. Any form of physical assault that threatens the sexuality of a person (man or woman), such as kissing, groping, touching in private or near private areas, etc. 2. Any form of sexual advances to a person who has expressed her/his disapproval towards the same. There is another case to be made for verbal and nonphysical . But I am not a legal expert and I base this these on a basic assumption of human rights. I can be wrong and I am open to corrections. | ||
|
RageBot
Israel1530 Posts
| ||
|
dani`
Netherlands2402 Posts
On August 24 2012 05:17 gedatsu wrote: You can call it "taking advantage" all you want, it doesn't change the fact that they got drunk on purpose and therefore are responsible for their own bad decisions. Even though I strongly agree with 'you are responsible for your actions', I strongly disagree with 'you can do whatever you want with drunk girls who cannot consciously make any decision like giving consent because they got drunk on purpose'. | ||
| ||
