|
On August 24 2012 10:25 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 10:13 BlazeFury01 wrote:
But see, what I do not get is people trying to say that the female teachers "raped" their male students. Hell, if I was in the students shoes, I would have jumped at the opportunity to have a one on one with the teacher about sexual education. The consent in sex between a teacher and a student is really murky due to the power and responsibility that the relationship gives one over the other. The fact that you find it hot doesn't change that, it is still wrong.
I did not say that it was right to begin with, so I do not see why your telling me that its wrong. Of course it is wrong, but they label it as "rape" when it was not "forced intercourse" at all.
|
On August 24 2012 10:31 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 10:29 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:22 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 10:13 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 09:22 NicolBolas wrote:On August 24 2012 09:15 Zahir wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_English_lawOne quick example of rape laws which only refer to men. "Rape shield" laws and statutory rape laws in the US often only offer protection to women. It also seems a commonly held opinion here that in cases where an inebriated man and woman have sex, only the male party is a potential rapist. These all flow from the belief that only men are even capable of rape and are inherently more evil, while women are more frail and pure. Beliefs dating back to the middle ages if not earlier. Check the Wikipedia article on rape laws if youd dispute this. Funny, I thought it flowed from the fact that men cause far more rapes than women. Also, the Rape Shield thing is similarly due to the fact that juries probably won't hold a man's promiscuous sexual history against him unless it materially affects the case. Whereas promiscuous women are all to frequently considered to have wanted it and later changed their minds. Rape trials frequently boil down to a he-said, she-said argument. In such an argument, the sexual history of a person may be relevant to determining if there is reasonable doubt as to whether consent was given. In practice, juries are absolutely motivated by prejudicial beliefs on gender norms, but that's an unforunate consequence caused by society, not the legal system. If the alleged victim of the rape explains that although they have previously had consensual sex they did not, in this case, consent then how exactly is the previous consensual sex relevant to anything? The only possible argument you can then make is that promiscuity is correlated with lying about rape. It is done purely to exploit residual sexism regarding women who leave the kitchen deserving rape. It's relevant because previous consensual sex may establish a reasonable belief that consent was implied (and therefore there was no mens rea). You yourself brought up an example in this thread that when consent is typically implied between partners in a sexual relationship unless otherwise communicated. Another example would be the Mike Tyson case I noted in my post, where rape shield laws barred evidence that the woman in question had a history of lying about sexual encounters. There's other examples that exist too, but the point is, a person's past history can create reasonable doubt, which the defendant of any crime is absolutely entitled to using in their defense. And if it isn't relevant, then the laws of evidence already allow the prosecution to object to such an argument. What about evidence that the man has been accused (but not convicted) of rape several times before?
If they weren't convicted, then in the eyes of the law it didn't happen, so that wouldn't be allowed.
If they were convicted, on the other hand, then hell yes it should be brought up and I'd consider the prosecution to be failing at their jobs if they didn't.
|
On August 24 2012 10:32 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 10:31 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:29 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:22 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 10:13 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 09:22 NicolBolas wrote:On August 24 2012 09:15 Zahir wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_English_lawOne quick example of rape laws which only refer to men. "Rape shield" laws and statutory rape laws in the US often only offer protection to women. It also seems a commonly held opinion here that in cases where an inebriated man and woman have sex, only the male party is a potential rapist. These all flow from the belief that only men are even capable of rape and are inherently more evil, while women are more frail and pure. Beliefs dating back to the middle ages if not earlier. Check the Wikipedia article on rape laws if youd dispute this. Funny, I thought it flowed from the fact that men cause far more rapes than women. Also, the Rape Shield thing is similarly due to the fact that juries probably won't hold a man's promiscuous sexual history against him unless it materially affects the case. Whereas promiscuous women are all to frequently considered to have wanted it and later changed their minds. Rape trials frequently boil down to a he-said, she-said argument. In such an argument, the sexual history of a person may be relevant to determining if there is reasonable doubt as to whether consent was given. In practice, juries are absolutely motivated by prejudicial beliefs on gender norms, but that's an unforunate consequence caused by society, not the legal system. If the alleged victim of the rape explains that although they have previously had consensual sex they did not, in this case, consent then how exactly is the previous consensual sex relevant to anything? The only possible argument you can then make is that promiscuity is correlated with lying about rape. It is done purely to exploit residual sexism regarding women who leave the kitchen deserving rape. It's relevant because previous consensual sex may establish a reasonable belief that consent was implied (and therefore there was no mens rea). You yourself brought up an example in this thread that when consent is typically implied between partners in a sexual relationship unless otherwise communicated. Another example would be the Mike Tyson case I noted in my post, where rape shield laws barred evidence that the woman in question had a history of lying about sexual encounters. There's other examples that exist too, but the point is, a person's past history can create reasonable doubt, which the defendant of any crime is absolutely entitled to using in their defense. And if it isn't relevant, then the laws of evidence already allow the prosecution to object to such an argument. What about evidence that the man has been accused (but not convicted) of rape several times before? If they weren't convicted, then in the eyes of the law it didn't happen, so that wouldn't be allowed. If they were convicted, on the other hand, then hell yes it should be brought up and I'd consider the prosecution to be failing at their jobs if they didn't.
Even without conviction, you don't think it's relevant that this particular man keeps "making mistakes" about women consenting to sex?
Because this line of thinking is what allows serial rapists to easily escape the justice system time and time again.
|
United States41980 Posts
On August 24 2012 10:29 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 10:22 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 10:13 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 09:22 NicolBolas wrote:On August 24 2012 09:15 Zahir wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_English_lawOne quick example of rape laws which only refer to men. "Rape shield" laws and statutory rape laws in the US often only offer protection to women. It also seems a commonly held opinion here that in cases where an inebriated man and woman have sex, only the male party is a potential rapist. These all flow from the belief that only men are even capable of rape and are inherently more evil, while women are more frail and pure. Beliefs dating back to the middle ages if not earlier. Check the Wikipedia article on rape laws if youd dispute this. Funny, I thought it flowed from the fact that men cause far more rapes than women. Also, the Rape Shield thing is similarly due to the fact that juries probably won't hold a man's promiscuous sexual history against him unless it materially affects the case. Whereas promiscuous women are all to frequently considered to have wanted it and later changed their minds. Rape trials frequently boil down to a he-said, she-said argument. In such an argument, the sexual history of a person may be relevant to determining if there is reasonable doubt as to whether consent was given. In practice, juries are absolutely motivated by prejudicial beliefs on gender norms, but that's an unforunate consequence caused by society, not the legal system. If the alleged victim of the rape explains that although they have previously had consensual sex they did not, in this case, consent then how exactly is the previous consensual sex relevant to anything? The only possible argument you can then make is that promiscuity is correlated with lying about rape. It is done purely to exploit residual sexism regarding women who leave the kitchen deserving rape. It's relevant because previous consensual sex may establish a reasonable belief that consent was implied (and therefore there was no mens rea). You yourself brought up an example in this thread that when consent is typically implied between partners in a sexual relationship unless otherwise communicated. Another example would be the Mike Tyson case I noted in my post, where rape shield laws barred evidence that the woman in question had a history of lying about sexual encounters. There's other examples that exist too, but the point is, a person's past history can create reasonable doubt. And if it isn't relevant, then the laws of evidence already allow the prosecution to object to such an argument.
I cannot give you statistics on the prevalence of courts shaming an alleged victim simply to turn the jury against her or to use humiliation as a weapon and therefore can't effectively argue the efficacy of laws stopping irrelevant arguments. I don't disagree that all relevant information should be heard by the court but there is certainly a popular perception that the promiscuity argument is used, despite its irrelevance, and there is evidence that jurors are stupid enough to buy into it (polls show people are happy to blame rape victims etc).
I assume we agree that it is a disgusting and immoral tactic when used purely to exploit sexism and harass the alleged victim, you simply feel that evidence laws, when enforced, should prevent it.
|
On August 24 2012 10:34 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 10:32 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:31 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:29 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:22 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 10:13 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 09:22 NicolBolas wrote:On August 24 2012 09:15 Zahir wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_English_lawOne quick example of rape laws which only refer to men. "Rape shield" laws and statutory rape laws in the US often only offer protection to women. It also seems a commonly held opinion here that in cases where an inebriated man and woman have sex, only the male party is a potential rapist. These all flow from the belief that only men are even capable of rape and are inherently more evil, while women are more frail and pure. Beliefs dating back to the middle ages if not earlier. Check the Wikipedia article on rape laws if youd dispute this. Funny, I thought it flowed from the fact that men cause far more rapes than women. Also, the Rape Shield thing is similarly due to the fact that juries probably won't hold a man's promiscuous sexual history against him unless it materially affects the case. Whereas promiscuous women are all to frequently considered to have wanted it and later changed their minds. Rape trials frequently boil down to a he-said, she-said argument. In such an argument, the sexual history of a person may be relevant to determining if there is reasonable doubt as to whether consent was given. In practice, juries are absolutely motivated by prejudicial beliefs on gender norms, but that's an unforunate consequence caused by society, not the legal system. If the alleged victim of the rape explains that although they have previously had consensual sex they did not, in this case, consent then how exactly is the previous consensual sex relevant to anything? The only possible argument you can then make is that promiscuity is correlated with lying about rape. It is done purely to exploit residual sexism regarding women who leave the kitchen deserving rape. It's relevant because previous consensual sex may establish a reasonable belief that consent was implied (and therefore there was no mens rea). You yourself brought up an example in this thread that when consent is typically implied between partners in a sexual relationship unless otherwise communicated. Another example would be the Mike Tyson case I noted in my post, where rape shield laws barred evidence that the woman in question had a history of lying about sexual encounters. There's other examples that exist too, but the point is, a person's past history can create reasonable doubt, which the defendant of any crime is absolutely entitled to using in their defense. And if it isn't relevant, then the laws of evidence already allow the prosecution to object to such an argument. What about evidence that the man has been accused (but not convicted) of rape several times before? If they weren't convicted, then in the eyes of the law it didn't happen, so that wouldn't be allowed. If they were convicted, on the other hand, then hell yes it should be brought up and I'd consider the prosecution to be failing at their jobs if they didn't. Even without conviction, you don't think it's relevant that this particular man keeps "making mistakes" about women consenting to sex?
lol celebrities/atheletes do this all the time
|
On August 24 2012 10:34 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 10:32 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:31 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:29 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:22 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 10:13 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 09:22 NicolBolas wrote:On August 24 2012 09:15 Zahir wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_English_lawOne quick example of rape laws which only refer to men. "Rape shield" laws and statutory rape laws in the US often only offer protection to women. It also seems a commonly held opinion here that in cases where an inebriated man and woman have sex, only the male party is a potential rapist. These all flow from the belief that only men are even capable of rape and are inherently more evil, while women are more frail and pure. Beliefs dating back to the middle ages if not earlier. Check the Wikipedia article on rape laws if youd dispute this. Funny, I thought it flowed from the fact that men cause far more rapes than women. Also, the Rape Shield thing is similarly due to the fact that juries probably won't hold a man's promiscuous sexual history against him unless it materially affects the case. Whereas promiscuous women are all to frequently considered to have wanted it and later changed their minds. Rape trials frequently boil down to a he-said, she-said argument. In such an argument, the sexual history of a person may be relevant to determining if there is reasonable doubt as to whether consent was given. In practice, juries are absolutely motivated by prejudicial beliefs on gender norms, but that's an unforunate consequence caused by society, not the legal system. If the alleged victim of the rape explains that although they have previously had consensual sex they did not, in this case, consent then how exactly is the previous consensual sex relevant to anything? The only possible argument you can then make is that promiscuity is correlated with lying about rape. It is done purely to exploit residual sexism regarding women who leave the kitchen deserving rape. It's relevant because previous consensual sex may establish a reasonable belief that consent was implied (and therefore there was no mens rea). You yourself brought up an example in this thread that when consent is typically implied between partners in a sexual relationship unless otherwise communicated. Another example would be the Mike Tyson case I noted in my post, where rape shield laws barred evidence that the woman in question had a history of lying about sexual encounters. There's other examples that exist too, but the point is, a person's past history can create reasonable doubt, which the defendant of any crime is absolutely entitled to using in their defense. And if it isn't relevant, then the laws of evidence already allow the prosecution to object to such an argument. What about evidence that the man has been accused (but not convicted) of rape several times before? If they weren't convicted, then in the eyes of the law it didn't happen, so that wouldn't be allowed. If they were convicted, on the other hand, then hell yes it should be brought up and I'd consider the prosecution to be failing at their jobs if they didn't. You don't think it's relevant that this particular man keeps "making mistakes" about women consenting to sex?
No, because if he wasn't convicted the law has determined he never made any such mistakes.
For all we know, he's simply a target for false accusations (celebrities and professional athletes come to mind), or likes sticking his dick in crazy.
On August 24 2012 10:34 DoubleReed wrote:
Because this line of thinking is what allows serial rapists to easily escape the justice system time and time again.
No, it isn't. Even if this exists outside of feminist myths (and I challenge you to provide an example with citations), it's proof that the system properly supports "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" and/or that the prosecution is incompetent.
|
On August 24 2012 10:35 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 10:34 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:32 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:31 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:29 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:22 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 10:13 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 09:22 NicolBolas wrote:On August 24 2012 09:15 Zahir wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_English_lawOne quick example of rape laws which only refer to men. "Rape shield" laws and statutory rape laws in the US often only offer protection to women. It also seems a commonly held opinion here that in cases where an inebriated man and woman have sex, only the male party is a potential rapist. These all flow from the belief that only men are even capable of rape and are inherently more evil, while women are more frail and pure. Beliefs dating back to the middle ages if not earlier. Check the Wikipedia article on rape laws if youd dispute this. Funny, I thought it flowed from the fact that men cause far more rapes than women. Also, the Rape Shield thing is similarly due to the fact that juries probably won't hold a man's promiscuous sexual history against him unless it materially affects the case. Whereas promiscuous women are all to frequently considered to have wanted it and later changed their minds. Rape trials frequently boil down to a he-said, she-said argument. In such an argument, the sexual history of a person may be relevant to determining if there is reasonable doubt as to whether consent was given. In practice, juries are absolutely motivated by prejudicial beliefs on gender norms, but that's an unforunate consequence caused by society, not the legal system. If the alleged victim of the rape explains that although they have previously had consensual sex they did not, in this case, consent then how exactly is the previous consensual sex relevant to anything? The only possible argument you can then make is that promiscuity is correlated with lying about rape. It is done purely to exploit residual sexism regarding women who leave the kitchen deserving rape. It's relevant because previous consensual sex may establish a reasonable belief that consent was implied (and therefore there was no mens rea). You yourself brought up an example in this thread that when consent is typically implied between partners in a sexual relationship unless otherwise communicated. Another example would be the Mike Tyson case I noted in my post, where rape shield laws barred evidence that the woman in question had a history of lying about sexual encounters. There's other examples that exist too, but the point is, a person's past history can create reasonable doubt, which the defendant of any crime is absolutely entitled to using in their defense. And if it isn't relevant, then the laws of evidence already allow the prosecution to object to such an argument. What about evidence that the man has been accused (but not convicted) of rape several times before? If they weren't convicted, then in the eyes of the law it didn't happen, so that wouldn't be allowed. If they were convicted, on the other hand, then hell yes it should be brought up and I'd consider the prosecution to be failing at their jobs if they didn't. You don't think it's relevant that this particular man keeps "making mistakes" about women consenting to sex? No, because if he wasn't convicted the law has determined he never made any such mistakes. For all we know, he's simply a target for false accusations (celebrities and professional athletes come to mind), or likes sticking his dick in crazy.
Dog! We just posted that near the same time.
|
United States41980 Posts
On August 24 2012 10:31 BlazeFury01 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 10:25 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 10:13 BlazeFury01 wrote:
But see, what I do not get is people trying to say that the female teachers "raped" their male students. Hell, if I was in the students shoes, I would have jumped at the opportunity to have a one on one with the teacher about sexual education. The consent in sex between a teacher and a student is really murky due to the power and responsibility that the relationship gives one over the other. The fact that you find it hot doesn't change that, it is still wrong. I did not say that it was right to begin with, so I do not see why your telling me that its wrong. Of course it is wrong, but they label it as "rape" when it was not "forced intercourse" at all.
Because they were not able to give free consent to someone in a position of power over them. It is still rape. The power dynamic precludes any relationship as equals.
|
On August 24 2012 10:35 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 10:34 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:32 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:31 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:29 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:22 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 10:13 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 09:22 NicolBolas wrote:On August 24 2012 09:15 Zahir wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_English_lawOne quick example of rape laws which only refer to men. "Rape shield" laws and statutory rape laws in the US often only offer protection to women. It also seems a commonly held opinion here that in cases where an inebriated man and woman have sex, only the male party is a potential rapist. These all flow from the belief that only men are even capable of rape and are inherently more evil, while women are more frail and pure. Beliefs dating back to the middle ages if not earlier. Check the Wikipedia article on rape laws if youd dispute this. Funny, I thought it flowed from the fact that men cause far more rapes than women. Also, the Rape Shield thing is similarly due to the fact that juries probably won't hold a man's promiscuous sexual history against him unless it materially affects the case. Whereas promiscuous women are all to frequently considered to have wanted it and later changed their minds. Rape trials frequently boil down to a he-said, she-said argument. In such an argument, the sexual history of a person may be relevant to determining if there is reasonable doubt as to whether consent was given. In practice, juries are absolutely motivated by prejudicial beliefs on gender norms, but that's an unforunate consequence caused by society, not the legal system. If the alleged victim of the rape explains that although they have previously had consensual sex they did not, in this case, consent then how exactly is the previous consensual sex relevant to anything? The only possible argument you can then make is that promiscuity is correlated with lying about rape. It is done purely to exploit residual sexism regarding women who leave the kitchen deserving rape. It's relevant because previous consensual sex may establish a reasonable belief that consent was implied (and therefore there was no mens rea). You yourself brought up an example in this thread that when consent is typically implied between partners in a sexual relationship unless otherwise communicated. Another example would be the Mike Tyson case I noted in my post, where rape shield laws barred evidence that the woman in question had a history of lying about sexual encounters. There's other examples that exist too, but the point is, a person's past history can create reasonable doubt, which the defendant of any crime is absolutely entitled to using in their defense. And if it isn't relevant, then the laws of evidence already allow the prosecution to object to such an argument. What about evidence that the man has been accused (but not convicted) of rape several times before? If they weren't convicted, then in the eyes of the law it didn't happen, so that wouldn't be allowed. If they were convicted, on the other hand, then hell yes it should be brought up and I'd consider the prosecution to be failing at their jobs if they didn't. You don't think it's relevant that this particular man keeps "making mistakes" about women consenting to sex? No, because if he wasn't convicted the law has determined he never made any such mistakes. For all we know, he's simply a target for false accusations (celebrities and professional athletes come to mind), or likes sticking his dick in crazy.
Or maybe he's a serial rapist, that our law system is letting go time and time again without consequence.
And unfortunately, this is more common than you might think.
I fail to see how this cannot raise the likelihood of his guilt.
|
On August 24 2012 10:35 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 10:31 BlazeFury01 wrote:On August 24 2012 10:25 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 10:13 BlazeFury01 wrote:
But see, what I do not get is people trying to say that the female teachers "raped" their male students. Hell, if I was in the students shoes, I would have jumped at the opportunity to have a one on one with the teacher about sexual education. The consent in sex between a teacher and a student is really murky due to the power and responsibility that the relationship gives one over the other. The fact that you find it hot doesn't change that, it is still wrong. I did not say that it was right to begin with, so I do not see why your telling me that its wrong. Of course it is wrong, but they label it as "rape" when it was not "forced intercourse" at all. Because they were not able to give free consent to someone in a position of power over them. It is still rape. The power dynamic precludes any relationship as equals.
lol ok dude
|
On August 24 2012 10:36 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 10:35 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:34 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:32 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:31 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:29 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:22 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 10:13 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 09:22 NicolBolas wrote:On August 24 2012 09:15 Zahir wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_English_lawOne quick example of rape laws which only refer to men. "Rape shield" laws and statutory rape laws in the US often only offer protection to women. It also seems a commonly held opinion here that in cases where an inebriated man and woman have sex, only the male party is a potential rapist. These all flow from the belief that only men are even capable of rape and are inherently more evil, while women are more frail and pure. Beliefs dating back to the middle ages if not earlier. Check the Wikipedia article on rape laws if youd dispute this. Funny, I thought it flowed from the fact that men cause far more rapes than women. Also, the Rape Shield thing is similarly due to the fact that juries probably won't hold a man's promiscuous sexual history against him unless it materially affects the case. Whereas promiscuous women are all to frequently considered to have wanted it and later changed their minds. Rape trials frequently boil down to a he-said, she-said argument. In such an argument, the sexual history of a person may be relevant to determining if there is reasonable doubt as to whether consent was given. In practice, juries are absolutely motivated by prejudicial beliefs on gender norms, but that's an unforunate consequence caused by society, not the legal system. If the alleged victim of the rape explains that although they have previously had consensual sex they did not, in this case, consent then how exactly is the previous consensual sex relevant to anything? The only possible argument you can then make is that promiscuity is correlated with lying about rape. It is done purely to exploit residual sexism regarding women who leave the kitchen deserving rape. It's relevant because previous consensual sex may establish a reasonable belief that consent was implied (and therefore there was no mens rea). You yourself brought up an example in this thread that when consent is typically implied between partners in a sexual relationship unless otherwise communicated. Another example would be the Mike Tyson case I noted in my post, where rape shield laws barred evidence that the woman in question had a history of lying about sexual encounters. There's other examples that exist too, but the point is, a person's past history can create reasonable doubt, which the defendant of any crime is absolutely entitled to using in their defense. And if it isn't relevant, then the laws of evidence already allow the prosecution to object to such an argument. What about evidence that the man has been accused (but not convicted) of rape several times before? If they weren't convicted, then in the eyes of the law it didn't happen, so that wouldn't be allowed. If they were convicted, on the other hand, then hell yes it should be brought up and I'd consider the prosecution to be failing at their jobs if they didn't. You don't think it's relevant that this particular man keeps "making mistakes" about women consenting to sex? No, because if he wasn't convicted the law has determined he never made any such mistakes. For all we know, he's simply a target for false accusations (celebrities and professional athletes come to mind), or likes sticking his dick in crazy. Or maybe he's a serial rapist, that our law system is letting go time and time again without consequence. And unfortunately, this is more common than you might think. I fail to see how this cannot raise the likelihood of his guilt.
Somehow I don't believe you. At all.
As far as the last part of your post goes; Sure, it makes average joe raise their eyebrows. That is, however, irrelevant as per "if he wasn't convicted the law has determined he never made any such mistakes."
|
On August 24 2012 10:34 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 10:29 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:22 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 10:13 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 09:22 NicolBolas wrote:On August 24 2012 09:15 Zahir wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_English_lawOne quick example of rape laws which only refer to men. "Rape shield" laws and statutory rape laws in the US often only offer protection to women. It also seems a commonly held opinion here that in cases where an inebriated man and woman have sex, only the male party is a potential rapist. These all flow from the belief that only men are even capable of rape and are inherently more evil, while women are more frail and pure. Beliefs dating back to the middle ages if not earlier. Check the Wikipedia article on rape laws if youd dispute this. Funny, I thought it flowed from the fact that men cause far more rapes than women. Also, the Rape Shield thing is similarly due to the fact that juries probably won't hold a man's promiscuous sexual history against him unless it materially affects the case. Whereas promiscuous women are all to frequently considered to have wanted it and later changed their minds. Rape trials frequently boil down to a he-said, she-said argument. In such an argument, the sexual history of a person may be relevant to determining if there is reasonable doubt as to whether consent was given. In practice, juries are absolutely motivated by prejudicial beliefs on gender norms, but that's an unforunate consequence caused by society, not the legal system. If the alleged victim of the rape explains that although they have previously had consensual sex they did not, in this case, consent then how exactly is the previous consensual sex relevant to anything? The only possible argument you can then make is that promiscuity is correlated with lying about rape. It is done purely to exploit residual sexism regarding women who leave the kitchen deserving rape. It's relevant because previous consensual sex may establish a reasonable belief that consent was implied (and therefore there was no mens rea). You yourself brought up an example in this thread that when consent is typically implied between partners in a sexual relationship unless otherwise communicated. Another example would be the Mike Tyson case I noted in my post, where rape shield laws barred evidence that the woman in question had a history of lying about sexual encounters. There's other examples that exist too, but the point is, a person's past history can create reasonable doubt. And if it isn't relevant, then the laws of evidence already allow the prosecution to object to such an argument. I cannot give you statistics on the prevalence of courts shaming an alleged victim simply to turn the jury against her or to use humiliation as a weapon and therefore can't effectively argue the efficacy of laws stopping irrelevant arguments. I don't disagree that all relevant information should be heard by the court but there is certainly a popular perception that the promiscuity argument is used, despite its irrelevance, and there is evidence that jurors are stupid enough to buy into it (polls show people are happy to blame rape victims etc). I assume we agree that it is a disgusting and immoral tactic when used purely to exploit sexism and harass the alleged victim, you simply feel that evidence laws, when enforced, should prevent it.
Yeah, I agree it's a disgusting and immoral tactic. Unfortunately, it works because jurors are idiots, but there is no way around this without compromising the rights of the accused.
I don't think that evidence laws prevent all of it, due to said stupidity, but going beyond those laws is a worse harm than potentially letting a rapist go free.
|
United States41980 Posts
On August 24 2012 10:35 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 10:34 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:32 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:31 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:29 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:22 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 10:13 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 09:22 NicolBolas wrote:On August 24 2012 09:15 Zahir wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_English_lawOne quick example of rape laws which only refer to men. "Rape shield" laws and statutory rape laws in the US often only offer protection to women. It also seems a commonly held opinion here that in cases where an inebriated man and woman have sex, only the male party is a potential rapist. These all flow from the belief that only men are even capable of rape and are inherently more evil, while women are more frail and pure. Beliefs dating back to the middle ages if not earlier. Check the Wikipedia article on rape laws if youd dispute this. Funny, I thought it flowed from the fact that men cause far more rapes than women. Also, the Rape Shield thing is similarly due to the fact that juries probably won't hold a man's promiscuous sexual history against him unless it materially affects the case. Whereas promiscuous women are all to frequently considered to have wanted it and later changed their minds. Rape trials frequently boil down to a he-said, she-said argument. In such an argument, the sexual history of a person may be relevant to determining if there is reasonable doubt as to whether consent was given. In practice, juries are absolutely motivated by prejudicial beliefs on gender norms, but that's an unforunate consequence caused by society, not the legal system. If the alleged victim of the rape explains that although they have previously had consensual sex they did not, in this case, consent then how exactly is the previous consensual sex relevant to anything? The only possible argument you can then make is that promiscuity is correlated with lying about rape. It is done purely to exploit residual sexism regarding women who leave the kitchen deserving rape. It's relevant because previous consensual sex may establish a reasonable belief that consent was implied (and therefore there was no mens rea). You yourself brought up an example in this thread that when consent is typically implied between partners in a sexual relationship unless otherwise communicated. Another example would be the Mike Tyson case I noted in my post, where rape shield laws barred evidence that the woman in question had a history of lying about sexual encounters. There's other examples that exist too, but the point is, a person's past history can create reasonable doubt, which the defendant of any crime is absolutely entitled to using in their defense. And if it isn't relevant, then the laws of evidence already allow the prosecution to object to such an argument. What about evidence that the man has been accused (but not convicted) of rape several times before? If they weren't convicted, then in the eyes of the law it didn't happen, so that wouldn't be allowed. If they were convicted, on the other hand, then hell yes it should be brought up and I'd consider the prosecution to be failing at their jobs if they didn't. You don't think it's relevant that this particular man keeps "making mistakes" about women consenting to sex? No, because if he wasn't convicted the law has determined he never made any such mistakes. For all we know, he's simply a target for false accusations (celebrities and professional athletes come to mind), or likes sticking his dick in crazy. Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 10:34 DoubleReed wrote:
Because this line of thinking is what allows serial rapists to easily escape the justice system time and time again. No, it isn't. Even if this exists outside of feminist myths (and I challenge you to provide an example with citations), it's proof that the system properly supports "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" and/or that the prosecution is incompetent.
You deny serial rapists exist in society outside of feminist myths? They self report in anonymous surveys happily enough.
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/11/12/rapists-who-dont-think-theyre-rapists/
Of the 1882 people who responded 120 confessed to rape and 76 rapists anonymously confessed to serial rape, averaging at 5.8 each.
+ Show Spoiler [the questions they responded to] +1) Have you ever attempted unsuccessfully to have intercourse with an adult by force or threat of force?
2) Have you ever had sexual intercourse with someone who did not want you to because they were too intoxicated to resist?
3) Have you ever had intercourse with someone by force or threat of force?
4) Have you ever had oral intercourse with someone by force or threat of force?
|
On August 24 2012 10:38 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 10:36 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:35 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:34 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:32 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:31 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:29 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:22 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 10:13 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 09:22 NicolBolas wrote:
[quote]
Funny, I thought it flowed from the fact that men cause far more rapes than women. Also, the Rape Shield thing is similarly due to the fact that juries probably won't hold a man's promiscuous sexual history against him unless it materially affects the case. Whereas promiscuous women are all to frequently considered to have wanted it and later changed their minds. Rape trials frequently boil down to a he-said, she-said argument. In such an argument, the sexual history of a person may be relevant to determining if there is reasonable doubt as to whether consent was given. In practice, juries are absolutely motivated by prejudicial beliefs on gender norms, but that's an unforunate consequence caused by society, not the legal system. If the alleged victim of the rape explains that although they have previously had consensual sex they did not, in this case, consent then how exactly is the previous consensual sex relevant to anything? The only possible argument you can then make is that promiscuity is correlated with lying about rape. It is done purely to exploit residual sexism regarding women who leave the kitchen deserving rape. It's relevant because previous consensual sex may establish a reasonable belief that consent was implied (and therefore there was no mens rea). You yourself brought up an example in this thread that when consent is typically implied between partners in a sexual relationship unless otherwise communicated. Another example would be the Mike Tyson case I noted in my post, where rape shield laws barred evidence that the woman in question had a history of lying about sexual encounters. There's other examples that exist too, but the point is, a person's past history can create reasonable doubt, which the defendant of any crime is absolutely entitled to using in their defense. And if it isn't relevant, then the laws of evidence already allow the prosecution to object to such an argument. What about evidence that the man has been accused (but not convicted) of rape several times before? If they weren't convicted, then in the eyes of the law it didn't happen, so that wouldn't be allowed. If they were convicted, on the other hand, then hell yes it should be brought up and I'd consider the prosecution to be failing at their jobs if they didn't. You don't think it's relevant that this particular man keeps "making mistakes" about women consenting to sex? No, because if he wasn't convicted the law has determined he never made any such mistakes. For all we know, he's simply a target for false accusations (celebrities and professional athletes come to mind), or likes sticking his dick in crazy. Or maybe he's a serial rapist, that our law system is letting go time and time again without consequence. And unfortunately, this is more common than you might think. I fail to see how this cannot raise the likelihood of his guilt. Somehow I don't believe you. At all.
You are probably one of those people that actually think rapists are actually convicted and punished in America. Sad to say it's not true. Our laws are almost completely impotent when it comes to rape. It would be laughable if it weren't so harmful. Our laws are no better at catching serial rapists than they are any other kind of rapist, due to what sunprince is outlining beautifully.
http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/radicalizing-consent-towards-implementing-an-affirmative-consent-model-in-new-yorks-rape-law/
|
On August 24 2012 10:36 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 10:35 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:34 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:32 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:31 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:29 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:22 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 10:13 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 09:22 NicolBolas wrote:On August 24 2012 09:15 Zahir wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_English_lawOne quick example of rape laws which only refer to men. "Rape shield" laws and statutory rape laws in the US often only offer protection to women. It also seems a commonly held opinion here that in cases where an inebriated man and woman have sex, only the male party is a potential rapist. These all flow from the belief that only men are even capable of rape and are inherently more evil, while women are more frail and pure. Beliefs dating back to the middle ages if not earlier. Check the Wikipedia article on rape laws if youd dispute this. Funny, I thought it flowed from the fact that men cause far more rapes than women. Also, the Rape Shield thing is similarly due to the fact that juries probably won't hold a man's promiscuous sexual history against him unless it materially affects the case. Whereas promiscuous women are all to frequently considered to have wanted it and later changed their minds. Rape trials frequently boil down to a he-said, she-said argument. In such an argument, the sexual history of a person may be relevant to determining if there is reasonable doubt as to whether consent was given. In practice, juries are absolutely motivated by prejudicial beliefs on gender norms, but that's an unforunate consequence caused by society, not the legal system. If the alleged victim of the rape explains that although they have previously had consensual sex they did not, in this case, consent then how exactly is the previous consensual sex relevant to anything? The only possible argument you can then make is that promiscuity is correlated with lying about rape. It is done purely to exploit residual sexism regarding women who leave the kitchen deserving rape. It's relevant because previous consensual sex may establish a reasonable belief that consent was implied (and therefore there was no mens rea). You yourself brought up an example in this thread that when consent is typically implied between partners in a sexual relationship unless otherwise communicated. Another example would be the Mike Tyson case I noted in my post, where rape shield laws barred evidence that the woman in question had a history of lying about sexual encounters. There's other examples that exist too, but the point is, a person's past history can create reasonable doubt, which the defendant of any crime is absolutely entitled to using in their defense. And if it isn't relevant, then the laws of evidence already allow the prosecution to object to such an argument. What about evidence that the man has been accused (but not convicted) of rape several times before? If they weren't convicted, then in the eyes of the law it didn't happen, so that wouldn't be allowed. If they were convicted, on the other hand, then hell yes it should be brought up and I'd consider the prosecution to be failing at their jobs if they didn't. You don't think it's relevant that this particular man keeps "making mistakes" about women consenting to sex? No, because if he wasn't convicted the law has determined he never made any such mistakes. For all we know, he's simply a target for false accusations (celebrities and professional athletes come to mind), or likes sticking his dick in crazy. Or maybe he's a serial rapist, that our law system is letting go time and time again without consequence. And unfortunately, this is more common than you might think.
Maybe, but we believe in innocent until proven guilty. And I don't think it's more common than I think (as someone who has worked with an assistant district attorney), and if you believe otherwise, feel free to provide a citation.
On August 24 2012 10:34 DoubleReed wrote:
I fail to see how this cannot raise the likelihood of his guilt.
Because in the eyes of the law, it didn't happen. If you don't understand this, then you need to study common law judicidal philosophy (or perhaps someone better versed in it can explain it to you).
|
On August 24 2012 10:41 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 10:35 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:34 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:32 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:31 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:29 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:22 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 10:13 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 09:22 NicolBolas wrote:On August 24 2012 09:15 Zahir wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_English_lawOne quick example of rape laws which only refer to men. "Rape shield" laws and statutory rape laws in the US often only offer protection to women. It also seems a commonly held opinion here that in cases where an inebriated man and woman have sex, only the male party is a potential rapist. These all flow from the belief that only men are even capable of rape and are inherently more evil, while women are more frail and pure. Beliefs dating back to the middle ages if not earlier. Check the Wikipedia article on rape laws if youd dispute this. Funny, I thought it flowed from the fact that men cause far more rapes than women. Also, the Rape Shield thing is similarly due to the fact that juries probably won't hold a man's promiscuous sexual history against him unless it materially affects the case. Whereas promiscuous women are all to frequently considered to have wanted it and later changed their minds. Rape trials frequently boil down to a he-said, she-said argument. In such an argument, the sexual history of a person may be relevant to determining if there is reasonable doubt as to whether consent was given. In practice, juries are absolutely motivated by prejudicial beliefs on gender norms, but that's an unforunate consequence caused by society, not the legal system. If the alleged victim of the rape explains that although they have previously had consensual sex they did not, in this case, consent then how exactly is the previous consensual sex relevant to anything? The only possible argument you can then make is that promiscuity is correlated with lying about rape. It is done purely to exploit residual sexism regarding women who leave the kitchen deserving rape. It's relevant because previous consensual sex may establish a reasonable belief that consent was implied (and therefore there was no mens rea). You yourself brought up an example in this thread that when consent is typically implied between partners in a sexual relationship unless otherwise communicated. Another example would be the Mike Tyson case I noted in my post, where rape shield laws barred evidence that the woman in question had a history of lying about sexual encounters. There's other examples that exist too, but the point is, a person's past history can create reasonable doubt, which the defendant of any crime is absolutely entitled to using in their defense. And if it isn't relevant, then the laws of evidence already allow the prosecution to object to such an argument. What about evidence that the man has been accused (but not convicted) of rape several times before? If they weren't convicted, then in the eyes of the law it didn't happen, so that wouldn't be allowed. If they were convicted, on the other hand, then hell yes it should be brought up and I'd consider the prosecution to be failing at their jobs if they didn't. You don't think it's relevant that this particular man keeps "making mistakes" about women consenting to sex? No, because if he wasn't convicted the law has determined he never made any such mistakes. For all we know, he's simply a target for false accusations (celebrities and professional athletes come to mind), or likes sticking his dick in crazy. On August 24 2012 10:34 DoubleReed wrote:
Because this line of thinking is what allows serial rapists to easily escape the justice system time and time again. No, it isn't. Even if this exists outside of feminist myths (and I challenge you to provide an example with citations), it's proof that the system properly supports "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" and/or that the prosecution is incompetent. You deny serial rapists exist in society outside of feminist myths? They self report in anonymous surveys happily enough. http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/11/12/rapists-who-dont-think-theyre-rapists/Of the 1882 people who responded 120 confessed to rape and 76 rapists anonymously confessed to serial rape, averaging at 5.8 each.
No, I don't deny serial rapists exist. It's been well-documented by criminologists that rapists tend to be serial offenders, far more than most crimes.
To clarify, (since I may have used ambiguous wording), what I don't believe is that serial rapists easily escape the justice system time and time again. Certain feminists have a tendency to argue that the justice system is too easy on rapists, but criminologists and judicial experts disagree.
|
United States41980 Posts
On August 24 2012 10:36 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 10:35 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:34 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:32 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:31 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:29 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:22 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 10:13 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 09:22 NicolBolas wrote:On August 24 2012 09:15 Zahir wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_English_lawOne quick example of rape laws which only refer to men. "Rape shield" laws and statutory rape laws in the US often only offer protection to women. It also seems a commonly held opinion here that in cases where an inebriated man and woman have sex, only the male party is a potential rapist. These all flow from the belief that only men are even capable of rape and are inherently more evil, while women are more frail and pure. Beliefs dating back to the middle ages if not earlier. Check the Wikipedia article on rape laws if youd dispute this. Funny, I thought it flowed from the fact that men cause far more rapes than women. Also, the Rape Shield thing is similarly due to the fact that juries probably won't hold a man's promiscuous sexual history against him unless it materially affects the case. Whereas promiscuous women are all to frequently considered to have wanted it and later changed their minds. Rape trials frequently boil down to a he-said, she-said argument. In such an argument, the sexual history of a person may be relevant to determining if there is reasonable doubt as to whether consent was given. In practice, juries are absolutely motivated by prejudicial beliefs on gender norms, but that's an unforunate consequence caused by society, not the legal system. If the alleged victim of the rape explains that although they have previously had consensual sex they did not, in this case, consent then how exactly is the previous consensual sex relevant to anything? The only possible argument you can then make is that promiscuity is correlated with lying about rape. It is done purely to exploit residual sexism regarding women who leave the kitchen deserving rape. It's relevant because previous consensual sex may establish a reasonable belief that consent was implied (and therefore there was no mens rea). You yourself brought up an example in this thread that when consent is typically implied between partners in a sexual relationship unless otherwise communicated. Another example would be the Mike Tyson case I noted in my post, where rape shield laws barred evidence that the woman in question had a history of lying about sexual encounters. There's other examples that exist too, but the point is, a person's past history can create reasonable doubt, which the defendant of any crime is absolutely entitled to using in their defense. And if it isn't relevant, then the laws of evidence already allow the prosecution to object to such an argument. What about evidence that the man has been accused (but not convicted) of rape several times before? If they weren't convicted, then in the eyes of the law it didn't happen, so that wouldn't be allowed. If they were convicted, on the other hand, then hell yes it should be brought up and I'd consider the prosecution to be failing at their jobs if they didn't. You don't think it's relevant that this particular man keeps "making mistakes" about women consenting to sex? No, because if he wasn't convicted the law has determined he never made any such mistakes. For all we know, he's simply a target for false accusations (celebrities and professional athletes come to mind), or likes sticking his dick in crazy. Or maybe he's a serial rapist, that our law system is letting go time and time again without consequence. And unfortunately, this is more common than you might think. I fail to see how this cannot raise the likelihood of his guilt.
If you are found innocent then that is a conclusive "in the eyes of the law you did not do it", not a "we failed to convict you this time". Presenting it as a "maybe he did it" in a future trial is flat out lying, even though in the majority of rape cases the guy is guilty as sin.
|
On August 24 2012 10:45 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 10:36 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:35 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:34 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:32 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:31 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:29 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:22 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 10:13 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 09:22 NicolBolas wrote:
[quote]
Funny, I thought it flowed from the fact that men cause far more rapes than women. Also, the Rape Shield thing is similarly due to the fact that juries probably won't hold a man's promiscuous sexual history against him unless it materially affects the case. Whereas promiscuous women are all to frequently considered to have wanted it and later changed their minds. Rape trials frequently boil down to a he-said, she-said argument. In such an argument, the sexual history of a person may be relevant to determining if there is reasonable doubt as to whether consent was given. In practice, juries are absolutely motivated by prejudicial beliefs on gender norms, but that's an unforunate consequence caused by society, not the legal system. If the alleged victim of the rape explains that although they have previously had consensual sex they did not, in this case, consent then how exactly is the previous consensual sex relevant to anything? The only possible argument you can then make is that promiscuity is correlated with lying about rape. It is done purely to exploit residual sexism regarding women who leave the kitchen deserving rape. It's relevant because previous consensual sex may establish a reasonable belief that consent was implied (and therefore there was no mens rea). You yourself brought up an example in this thread that when consent is typically implied between partners in a sexual relationship unless otherwise communicated. Another example would be the Mike Tyson case I noted in my post, where rape shield laws barred evidence that the woman in question had a history of lying about sexual encounters. There's other examples that exist too, but the point is, a person's past history can create reasonable doubt, which the defendant of any crime is absolutely entitled to using in their defense. And if it isn't relevant, then the laws of evidence already allow the prosecution to object to such an argument. What about evidence that the man has been accused (but not convicted) of rape several times before? If they weren't convicted, then in the eyes of the law it didn't happen, so that wouldn't be allowed. If they were convicted, on the other hand, then hell yes it should be brought up and I'd consider the prosecution to be failing at their jobs if they didn't. You don't think it's relevant that this particular man keeps "making mistakes" about women consenting to sex? No, because if he wasn't convicted the law has determined he never made any such mistakes. For all we know, he's simply a target for false accusations (celebrities and professional athletes come to mind), or likes sticking his dick in crazy. Or maybe he's a serial rapist, that our law system is letting go time and time again without consequence. And unfortunately, this is more common than you might think. I fail to see how this cannot raise the likelihood of his guilt. If you are found innocent then that is a conclusive "in the eyes of the law you did not do it", not a "we failed to convict you this time". Presenting it as a "maybe he did it" in a future trial is flat out lying, even though in the majority of rape cases the guy is guilty as sin.
I understand the law perfectly well.
What I'm not understanding is why sunprince thinks previous consent to sex is relevant, but multiple previous rape accusations is not. Seems like a blatant double standard to me.
Anyway, sunprince is also unfortunately under the delusion that we prosecute rape, and under the further delusion that we convict rapists. Which is simply untrue. This link has footnotes upon footnotes of information about this sort of thing.
http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/radicalizing-consent-towards-implementing-an-affirmative-consent-model-in-new-yorks-rape-law/
|
United States41980 Posts
On August 24 2012 10:44 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 10:41 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 10:35 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:34 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:32 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:31 DoubleReed wrote:On August 24 2012 10:29 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:22 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 10:13 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 09:22 NicolBolas wrote:
[quote]
Funny, I thought it flowed from the fact that men cause far more rapes than women. Also, the Rape Shield thing is similarly due to the fact that juries probably won't hold a man's promiscuous sexual history against him unless it materially affects the case. Whereas promiscuous women are all to frequently considered to have wanted it and later changed their minds. Rape trials frequently boil down to a he-said, she-said argument. In such an argument, the sexual history of a person may be relevant to determining if there is reasonable doubt as to whether consent was given. In practice, juries are absolutely motivated by prejudicial beliefs on gender norms, but that's an unforunate consequence caused by society, not the legal system. If the alleged victim of the rape explains that although they have previously had consensual sex they did not, in this case, consent then how exactly is the previous consensual sex relevant to anything? The only possible argument you can then make is that promiscuity is correlated with lying about rape. It is done purely to exploit residual sexism regarding women who leave the kitchen deserving rape. It's relevant because previous consensual sex may establish a reasonable belief that consent was implied (and therefore there was no mens rea). You yourself brought up an example in this thread that when consent is typically implied between partners in a sexual relationship unless otherwise communicated. Another example would be the Mike Tyson case I noted in my post, where rape shield laws barred evidence that the woman in question had a history of lying about sexual encounters. There's other examples that exist too, but the point is, a person's past history can create reasonable doubt, which the defendant of any crime is absolutely entitled to using in their defense. And if it isn't relevant, then the laws of evidence already allow the prosecution to object to such an argument. What about evidence that the man has been accused (but not convicted) of rape several times before? If they weren't convicted, then in the eyes of the law it didn't happen, so that wouldn't be allowed. If they were convicted, on the other hand, then hell yes it should be brought up and I'd consider the prosecution to be failing at their jobs if they didn't. You don't think it's relevant that this particular man keeps "making mistakes" about women consenting to sex? No, because if he wasn't convicted the law has determined he never made any such mistakes. For all we know, he's simply a target for false accusations (celebrities and professional athletes come to mind), or likes sticking his dick in crazy. On August 24 2012 10:34 DoubleReed wrote:
Because this line of thinking is what allows serial rapists to easily escape the justice system time and time again. No, it isn't. Even if this exists outside of feminist myths (and I challenge you to provide an example with citations), it's proof that the system properly supports "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" and/or that the prosecution is incompetent. You deny serial rapists exist in society outside of feminist myths? They self report in anonymous surveys happily enough. http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/11/12/rapists-who-dont-think-theyre-rapists/Of the 1882 people who responded 120 confessed to rape and 76 rapists anonymously confessed to serial rape, averaging at 5.8 each. No, I don't deny serial rapists exist. It's been well-documented by criminologists that rapists tend to be serial offenders, far more than most crimes. To clarify, (since I may have used ambiguous wording), what I don't believe is that serial rapists easily escape the justice system time and time again. Certain feminists have a tendency to argue that the justice system is too easy on rapists, but criminologists and judicial experts disagree.
I'm assuming that by justice system you mean the ones that actually make it into the criminal system and not society's response to rape as a whole. Our society in general is woefully inadequate at responding to rape, the vast majority of rapes never get reported at all. The problem of rape is certainly not adequately addressed by the present laws and the majority of rapes are committed by serial rapists.
Is your stance that the problem is getting these cases into the justice system rather than a problem with the system itself?
|
On August 24 2012 10:39 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 10:34 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 10:29 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 10:22 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 10:13 sunprince wrote:On August 24 2012 09:22 NicolBolas wrote:On August 24 2012 09:15 Zahir wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_English_lawOne quick example of rape laws which only refer to men. "Rape shield" laws and statutory rape laws in the US often only offer protection to women. It also seems a commonly held opinion here that in cases where an inebriated man and woman have sex, only the male party is a potential rapist. These all flow from the belief that only men are even capable of rape and are inherently more evil, while women are more frail and pure. Beliefs dating back to the middle ages if not earlier. Check the Wikipedia article on rape laws if youd dispute this. Funny, I thought it flowed from the fact that men cause far more rapes than women. Also, the Rape Shield thing is similarly due to the fact that juries probably won't hold a man's promiscuous sexual history against him unless it materially affects the case. Whereas promiscuous women are all to frequently considered to have wanted it and later changed their minds. Rape trials frequently boil down to a he-said, she-said argument. In such an argument, the sexual history of a person may be relevant to determining if there is reasonable doubt as to whether consent was given. In practice, juries are absolutely motivated by prejudicial beliefs on gender norms, but that's an unforunate consequence caused by society, not the legal system. If the alleged victim of the rape explains that although they have previously had consensual sex they did not, in this case, consent then how exactly is the previous consensual sex relevant to anything? The only possible argument you can then make is that promiscuity is correlated with lying about rape. It is done purely to exploit residual sexism regarding women who leave the kitchen deserving rape. It's relevant because previous consensual sex may establish a reasonable belief that consent was implied (and therefore there was no mens rea). You yourself brought up an example in this thread that when consent is typically implied between partners in a sexual relationship unless otherwise communicated. Another example would be the Mike Tyson case I noted in my post, where rape shield laws barred evidence that the woman in question had a history of lying about sexual encounters. There's other examples that exist too, but the point is, a person's past history can create reasonable doubt. And if it isn't relevant, then the laws of evidence already allow the prosecution to object to such an argument. I cannot give you statistics on the prevalence of courts shaming an alleged victim simply to turn the jury against her or to use humiliation as a weapon and therefore can't effectively argue the efficacy of laws stopping irrelevant arguments. I don't disagree that all relevant information should be heard by the court but there is certainly a popular perception that the promiscuity argument is used, despite its irrelevance, and there is evidence that jurors are stupid enough to buy into it (polls show people are happy to blame rape victims etc). I assume we agree that it is a disgusting and immoral tactic when used purely to exploit sexism and harass the alleged victim, you simply feel that evidence laws, when enforced, should prevent it. Yeah, I agree it's a disgusting and immoral tactic. Unfortunately, it works because jurors are idiots, but there is no way around this without compromising the rights of the accused. I don't think that evidence laws prevent all of it, due to said stupidity, but going beyond those laws is a worse harm than potentially letting a rapist go free.
You can just get rid of the terrible jury system altogether, you know 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
