Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  That makes no sense. (0+ / 0-)

    We start with the status that the accused is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

    If it is known that there was sexual contact, it still must be proved that the person was raped by the accised beyond a reasonable doubt.

    If it can be proven that it rape then by default it is proven that the sex was not consensual.

    Please proceed, Governor.

    by USArmyParatrooper on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 06:39:06 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  We're both talking about 'proven' (0+ / 0-)

      The distinction is over the legal standard for the word 'proven' - "beyond a reasonable doubt" or "predominance of evidence".  

      If it is known that there was sexual contact, it still must be proved that the person was raped by the accised beyond a reasonable doubt.
      So if I'm a stranger and I walked up and stole $400 out of your wallet when nobody was looking and used it to buy new rims for my car, and then said "he was feeling charitable and gave it to me to buy new rims", should the prosecution have to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that you weren't feeling charitable and just gave it to me to buy new rims, or should the court judge that claim on the predominance of evidence"?

      Virtually everyone would say "predominance of evidence".  And indeed, that is how it's done.  My claim that you "consented" to give me your $400 is just that - a defense claim - and defense claims aren't something that the prosecution is obligated to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt.

      And just like a consent claim gets a predominance of evidence analysis in a theft trial, a consent claim should get a predominance of evidence analysis in a rape trial.  If a theif's defense of consent is technically possible but unlikely, they get convicted under a predominance of evidence standard.  The same should apply to rapists.

      •  "predominance of evidence" (0+ / 0-)

        Never heard if it, looked it up. Couldn't find it. Is that even really a legal term? Do you actually have any legal expertise or are you just winging it?

        Please proceed, Governor.

        by USArmyParatrooper on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 09:36:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ack (0+ / 0-)

          Preponderance of evidence, not predominance.

          I did a search-replace and had the wrong word in there.

          •  Wow, just wow. (0+ / 0-)

            A the threshold of a preponderance of evidence is used in civil cases, which is essentially deciding which way the evidence leans.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/...

            The standard is met if the proposition is more likely to be true than not true. Effectively, the standard is satisfied if there is greater than 50 percent chance that the proposition is true. Lord Denning, in Miller v. Minister of Pensions,[5] described it simply as "more probable than not." Until 1970, this was also the standard used in juvenile court in the United States.
            So you're advocating that if there is sexual contact between a man and a woman, and the woman claims it was rape, and if a jury decides there's a 51% chance she's telling the truth.....

            The man should be convicted of rape, lose everything he has, spend years being someone's bitch in prison (they love rapists in prison) and spend the rest of his life as a registered sex offender.

            Please proceed, Governor.

            by USArmyParatrooper on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 06:05:05 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  A preponderance of evidence stanard is *also* (0+ / 0-)

              used in evaluating defense arguments in criminal cases.  See all of the references cited in my above link.  It's used for arguments of insanity, arguments of self defense, arguments of malicious prosecution, arguments of discriminatory behavior, and on and on down the list.  The defense can't simply make a claim and require that the prosecution prove their claims beyond a shadow of a doubt.

              The prosecution is obliged to prove the basic facts of a criminal case beyond a shadow of a doubt.  Not defense excuses for said facts.

              •  Ack after (0+ / 0-)

                Beyond a reasonable doubt.  Shadow of a doubt is a different standard.

              •  What is your legal expertise? (0+ / 0-)

                Do you even have any or did you just stay at the holiday Inn Express?

                First of all, I don't just take your claims at face value when it comes to legal matters, but either way your comparison is silly.

                A bullet entering someone's body is [i]always[/i] meant to do harm. If you shoot someone you have to explain WHY you shot the person. There is NO possible scenario where shooting someone does not require legal questions to be answered.

                A penis entering a vagina is NOT always meant to do harm. In fact, the vast majority of the time it is to give pleasure and/or create life. The mere fact that a man put his penis inside a woman's vagina does not require legal justification. Billions of people do it all over the world without requiring explanation to law enforcement or any court.

                And just so we're clear, you are on record saying you're OK with someone being convicted of rape because a jury thought there was a 51% chance he is guilty?

                Please proceed, Governor.

                by USArmyParatrooper on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 05:55:53 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site