If due process exists, why do most feminists want alleged rapists to prove their own innocence?
- FoofaLv 711 months ago
Most feminists aren't lawyers nor Constitutional experts so perhaps they don't fully understand the presumption of innocence our police and courts must abide by.
- ChemFlunkyLv 711 months ago
Here's what this feminist would like to see, in terms of rape and due process.
In order to convict someone of rape, the state must first establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that sex has occurred between the alleged victim and the alleged perpetrator, because this is something that can be established as a fact (as much as possible, at least). For this part of the prosecution, the standards of evidence and the like should be the same as for, eg, accusing someone of theft.
But owing to the he-said-she-said nature of rape (the only actual witnesses are the alleged victim and the alleged perpetrator), it is not reasonable to expect the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the sex that they *did* prove beyond a reasonable doubt actually occurred was nonconsensual, if that makes sense. For that part, *and only that part*, of the prosecution's case, I think preponderance of evidence is a more reasonable standard. This is not the same as "You have to prove that you're innocent", so much as... you have to provide at least roughly as much evidence that you're innocent (again, only of the "was it consensual or not" part, not the "did sex actually occur" part) as the prosecution does that you're guilty, with ties more or less going in your favor.
Let's look at a few hypothetical examples, and the verdicts that I would want juries to reach on them.
Base scenario 1: She comes over to his house. They have sex. Neither party disputes this, but she says it was rape while he says it was consensual.
A. He has chat logs showing the two of them sexting, talking about how "hot" tonight is going to be, and so on. She has... her bare word that when the time came, she said "no" and he didn't stop. Verdict: not guilty.
B. He has chat logs of an exchange that basically amounted to "Want to come over and fool around?" "I don't know. I guess so." She has photos the police took of bruises on her arms from struggling. Verdict: guilty.
C. He has chat logs of her talking about wanting to do "rape play", how she "likes it rough", and so on. She has photos she took of bruises on her arms, but nothing particularly extreme. Verdict: not guilty.
Base scenario 2: classic back-alley stranger rape (eg he held her at gunpoint, then raped her)
a. He denies that he did it. The rape kit shows that he did, in fact, have sex with her. Verdict: guilty.
b. He denies that he did it. The rape kit is inconclusive. Verdict: not guilty.
c. He says that he did have sex with her, but that it was because "she was totally asking for it". He provides no particular evidence of this. Verdict: guilty
d. He says that he did have sex with her, but it was an arranged "rape" at her request. He shows her fetlife ad requesting a "realistic rape", and testimony (perhaps anonymous) from some of the other guys who answered her ad. Verdict: not guilty.
Base scenario 3: (let's mix things up, this time we'll have a female perp and a male victim) He claims that she drugged him, in order to have sex with him against his will. Let's have this one be another "neither party disagrees that sex occurred, just whether it was consensual".
i. The drug in question was alcohol, he voluntarily got drunk, and she was pretty sloshed herself. Verdict: not guilty
ii. The drug in question was alcohol, he voluntarily got drunk, but she was stone cold sober. Verdict: guilty of a lesser charge (somewhat equivalent to statutory rape)
iii. The drug in question was alcohol, he claims she spiked his drink, the prosecution proves that he had been ordering rum-and-cokes all night. Verdict: as per i or ii, depending on her condition.
iv. The drug in question was alcohol, he claims she spiked his drink, the prosecution can't show any evidence that he ordered anything besides ginger ale. Verdict: guilty.
v. The drug in question was rohypnol, he was tested after the event and it was still in his system, and the prosecution can prove that she had, in fact, purchased the drug. Verdict: guilty.
vi. Same as v, except the prosecution can't even prove that she had access to the drug. Verdict: not guilty.
And so on.
- Anonymous11 months ago
Feminists figured out accused men are more likely to suffer if the accuser doesn’t need to prove they in fact committed rape. . This is why we have college kangaroo courts. This is why we have #MeToo, this is why some notable feminists say men accused of rape should be denied a trial by jury.
- GodLv 511 months ago
Women never do anything wrong and are always the innocent victims. All rape allegations are true of course, because women never lie. Women can't sexually harass, abuse or rape men or boys! Sexism was created by men and only men can be sexist. After all if a 12 year old boy (who hit puberty) impregnates a 26 year old woman, he should be charged with rape. How dare he take advantage of an innocent victim.
Women's Studies 101
- What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
- ʄaçadeLv 711 months ago
> "...why do most feminists want alleged rapists to prove their own innocence?"
If seems to be unlikely that most Feminists™ actually claim to want that requirement.
For those who do, the solution is simple:
Accuse them of rape and let them try to prove their innocence.
When they are released from prison (if ever), then their perspective on the matter will have improved.
- Anonymous11 months ago
These are just lies. Why are you lying.
- Anonymous11 months ago
it would be much easier if criminals under prosecution ---could prove---their innocence; rather then just claiming it?
this is one of the flaws in our judicial system.
when people try every criminal case in the MEDIA, and every political issue is settled in the MEDIA; then that is the biggest problem with the system, when kangaroo-courts of pubic media users decide the "truth".
- 11 months ago
I understand their position. They have been hurt and want something done about it and done RIGHT NOW. Everybody would feel the same way.
One time a man broke into my house and stole $2,000. It was my "emergency" money. I knew what he did and who he was. It was a young man in my neighborhood. He want drugs and stole money to buy it. I WANTED to go to his house and shoot him in the head until he was dead. But I didn't. Instead I called the police. They investigated, learned the truth and arrested the guy. He got a lawyer and we went to court. The cops testified, I testified, the lawyers ask me a bunch of rude questions and tried to claim I had give the money to the guy and I was now lying. ETC. ETC. The whole thing took over a year. It was a pain in the butt and cost me time and money. But the guy was convicted and sent to prison. That's how due process works. It ain't perfect but it's better than killing people we don't like.
- lizLv 711 months ago
I have no idea. Why not post a link to something that shows most feminists think this?
I suppose it’s because there’s nothing to show they do.
- .Lv 711 months ago
Because most rape falls into the category of "date rape," where there are only two witnesses (the perpetrator & victim) and the key legal issue is consent.