People's reaction to rape allegations

[carl dsaadi]

To be fair, whilst it's an allegation, it's not proven is it. So it would be a little premature to form any opinion on the basis of it.

 

---------- Post added 06-02-2015 at 13:04 ----------

 

 

They have to prove that you did it, you don't have to prove that you didn't. So not remembering the day won't matter unless they have some evidence that you did it.

 

It would help if you knew what you was doing at the time.

 

An alibi can prove you are innocent.

 

You are accused of raping someone yesterday, you know that at the time of the rape you was having dinner with friends in a busy restaurant, the police can check your alibi to determine if it is true or false.

 

You are accused of raping someone 30 years ago, you have no idea what you was doing at the time, but you could have been having dinner with friends in a busy restaurant or having sex with the accuser but have no memory of the event because it was one of many unmemorable one night stands.

[Gardens work]

--- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edited September 20, 2015 by Gardens work

[Solomon1]

Totally agree!

 

Dude, stop being an embarrassment to the male race

 

Seriously

 

Wake up and smell the goddamned effin roses man

 

Rape is a MALE issue

 

Because most rapists are MEN

 

Stop whining about the 0.001%

 

And focus on the other 99.999%

 

Where's your head at?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mdoh33D4TYY

 

---------- Post added 19-07-2015 at 00:16 ----------

 

I guess what I'm trying to say here

 

Is if you REALLY care about injustice

 

Look at the iceberg

 

Not at the penguin on top

[cassity]

It would help if you knew what you was doing at the time.

 

 

It would, but the accuser has to prove the accusation. A court will not convict on "he did it", even if the accused is a serial abuser.

 

 

could have been having sex with the accuser but have no memory of the event because it was one of many unmemorable one night stands.

 

Would that be conveniently 'unmemorable' now because the past has caught up ? Memory loss isn't a defense to an offence.

[carl dsaadi]

It would, but the accuser has to prove the accusation. A court will not convict on "he did it", even if the accused is a serial abuser.

 

 

 

 

Would that be conveniently 'unmemorable' now because the past has caught up ? Memory loss isn't a defense to an offence.

 

No, the prosecution and defense have to present a sequence of events that 12 people can believe and the 12 people decide which version is the most believable. It's a belief system and not a system that requires proof.

 

Most people won't remember events that are unmemorable, if someone claims that you did something 30 years ago it very unlikely that you remember doing it if it was unmemorable. The human brain evolved with the ability to forget old information that is considered unimportant.

 

Short-term memory is the capacity for holding a small amount of information readily available state for a short period of time, most of that information won't be stored in the long term memory and even if it is, over time it becomes more difficult to recall.

[cassity]

No,

 

Saying "No" at the beginning of posts isn't evidence that you are right.

 

The sequence of events are evidence. It has to be something more substantial than "Yes, he did it" as evidence he did, and "No, I didn't" as evidence he didn't.

 

Proof of a crime requires evidence, not just a belief.

[carl dsaadi]

Saying "No" at the beginning of posts isn't evidence that you are right.

 

The sequence of events are evidence. It has to be something more substantial than "Yes, he did it" as evidence he did, and "No, I didn't" as evidence he didn't.

 

Proof of a crime requires evidence, not just a belief.

 

What possible evidence could exist that someone raped someone else 30 years ago, other than someone or a group of people saying he raped me, its then down to the jury to decide if they believe the accuser or the accused.

 

If you claimed to have a diamond the size of a tennis ball I wouldn't believe you, because it is unbelievable. You could prove it by producing the diamond for inspection but producing 20 other people that also say they have a diamond the size of a tennis ball wouldn't be proof that you or they have one.

 

If you claimed to have one the size of a grain of sand I would be more inclined to believe you, but the only way to prove you have one is to produce it for inspection, the fact that they are quite common isn't proof you have one.

 

So people are convicted because the jury believe the accused to be guilty and not because they saw proof of guilt.

[cassity]

 

So people are convicted because the jury believe the accused to be guilty and not because they saw proof of guilt.

 

 

They come to this conclusion because of evidence. Not because they believe he looks dodgy..that isn't justice.

 

What possible evidence could exist that someone raped someone else 30 years ago, other than someone or a group of people saying he raped me, its then down to the jury to decide if they believe the accuser or the accused.

 

That's the job of the prosecution. Just because 30 yrs have elapsed doesn't negate the fact that there could still be evidence. Your line of logic is, 30 yrs have gone by so that alone is evidence of innocence.

[Cyclone]

No, the prosecution and defense have to present a sequence of events that 12 people can believe and the 12 people decide which version is the most believable. It's a belief system and not a system that requires proof.

Beyond reasonable doubt though, not on the balance of probabilities.

 

So a single persons allegation from 30 years ago should not be sufficient to obtain a conviction.

[carl dsaadi]

They come to this conclusion because of evidence. Not because they believe he looks dodgy..that isn't justice.

 

 

 

That's the job of the prosecution. Just because 30 yrs have elapsed doesn't negate the fact that there could still be evidence. Your line of logic is, 30 yrs have gone by so that alone is evidence of innocence.

 

 

 

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 ----------

 

Beyond reasonable doubt though, not on the balance of probabilities.

 

So a single persons allegation from 30 years ago should not be sufficient to obtain a conviction.

 

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.