People's reaction to rape allegations

[Cyclone]

The judge will instruct them on what BRD means in law. If the only evidence and defence presented are statements from the complainant and the defendant then I think it extremely unlikely that a conviction could take place so long after the alleged offence.

 

Now if 30 people complain, independently, with similar stories, that's a very different matter.

[Halibut]

What evidence? there is no evidence that anyone had sex with anyone else let alone raped them, other than the word of the accuser, its down to the jury to decide who to believe, the accuser or the accused, and if the accused has no idea what they was doing at the time of the alleged rape then they can't even present a defense other than, I didn't rape them.

 

I haven't said that someone is innocent just because 30 years have gone by.

 

I have said their conviction is based on belief and not proof, the jury will decide who to believe. Billions of people believe that God exists even though they have no proof of its existence. There are 12 people on the jury, they might all believe the accused is guilty or innocent or their vote might be split with someone believing guilty and some believing innocent. What they decide is based on their opinion and what they believe, in some cases there is a huge amount of evidence and the choice is easy and in other cases there is very little in the way of evidence but they still need to make a decision, sometimes they will get it right and sometimes they will get it wrong.

 

---------- Post added 19-07-2015 at 13:54 ----------

 

 

But only beyond reasonable doubt for the 12 people on the jury, 12 different people could come to a different verdict, very often even though the 12 people listened to the same evidence they still don't all agree, because people are willing to believe different things based on different levels of evidence.

 

Billions of people will say that God exists but that isn't proof of its existence. 12 people believing beyond reasonable doubt that someone committed a crime is enough to lock them up, but it isn't proof that they actually committed the crime.

 

I've tried really hard to understand the mindset of a man who ignores the realities of rape and focuses all their energy on defending men, but I just can't.

 

I can only assume that you don't really care about women, or that you think rape isn't that big a deal.

[Kthebean]

I have said their conviction is based on belief and not proof

 

Not necessarily, there could be witnesses, there might be photographic or video evidence. There might be witnesses or other evidence of threats or intimidation. There might be a baby born of the rape which bears DNA.

 

Just because a crime happened 30 years ago it doesn't mean there is no evidence.

[leviathan13]

Not necessarily, there could be witnesses, there might be photographic or video evidence. There might be witnesses or other evidence of threats or intimidation. There might be a baby born of the rape which bears DNA.

 

Just because a crime happened 30 years ago it doesn't mean there is no evidence.

 

Two people meet in a pub, have a one night stand (unprotected but consenting), woman finds out she's pregnant and claims that she was raped to try and hide her humiliation... thus DNA is NOT proof of a rape, just a very drunkenly misguided evening.

[Kthebean]

Two people meet in a pub, have a one night stand (unprotected but consenting), woman finds out she's pregnant and claims that she was raped to try and hide her humiliation... thus DNA is NOT proof of a rape, just a very drunkenly misguided evening.

 

Man has consensual or otherwise sex with a 13 year old girl. Girl gets pregnant.

 

Girl decides 30 years later to disclose who raped her.

 

Conclusive proof of rape.

 

Does depend on the circumstances doesn't it. I'm not sure WHY you're trying to DISPROVE things I DIDN'T say?

[leviathan13]

Man has consensual or otherwise sex with a 13 year old girl. Girl gets pregnant.

 

Girl decides 30 years later to disclose who raped her.

 

Conclusive proof of rape.

 

Does depend on the circumstances doesn't it. I'm not sure WHY you're trying to DISPROVE things I DIDN'T say?

 

But only if the victim is underage - not all of them were.

[Kthebean]

But only if the victim is underage - not all of them were.

 

I don't understand wht you're point you're trying to make?

[leviathan13]

I don't understand wht you're point you're trying to make?

 

Well, you said that just because a crime happened 30 years ago doesn't mean that evidence doesn't exist. You said that pregnancy could be used to prove a rape - it could, but only if the victim was underage, as any sexual act with someone under the legal age is illegal.

 

But, it doesn't evidence rape if the victim is of legal age, for reasons such as I previously gave.

[Jeffrey Shaw]

An action that happened 30yrs. ago constitutes a crime only IF and WHEN a Court convicts anyone of it. The facts might point towards behaviour being criminal, true; but even an awful attack on a victim is just that unless & until proven a criminal offence.

[Flanker7]

I've always though a defendant is tried on the circumstances of the case.

That's singular and usually in rape cases 1 against 1.

 

For the last few years (alleged) repeat offenders seem to have been found guilty on the grounds of a similar M.O., repeated several (or more) times.

 

The dangers for justice are clear. Lynch mob media and widespread social and mainstream media revelations of behaviour make fabricating complaints, for whatever reason, becomes easier. Please don't take this the wrong way, I'm not suggesting guilt or innocence. Just interested in how the law see's it.

 

Did I miss something along the way or did I have it wrong in the first place?