This breaks down to a degree for rape. By its nature it is infrequently observed by witnesses. This judicial system requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that (a) a specific event happened (what event depends slightly on your jurisdiction) and (b) one of the parties involved did not consent to it.
Some cases are straight-forward. When a man grabs a woman in a park and rapes her behind a wall, it's pretty clear that consent was not given. Then you only need to prove that the event happened, and you have a case. The event is usually pretty easy to prove - it leaves physical evidence.
But in many other cases, consent is not straightforward. When two drunk teens are fooling around and things go too far, or (in many jurisdictions) when consent is withdrawn during intercourse... then it inevitably descends in to a mess of he-said she-said.
Not just rape, though, or rather, by singling out rape, you're suggesting that victims of rape are inherently less credible than victims of other crimes. Do you believe this?
For example, fraud is a case of he-said, she-said where a victim claims they were fooled and the defendant claims the "victim" had all the facts on hand.
Or for example, robbery is a case of he-said, she said where a victim claims they were held up and the defendant claims the "victim" gave them a gift.
In other words, other than the violent ones that leave physical evidence, the majority of crimes fall down to victim testimony vs. defendant testimony, or he-said, she-said. Yet, it's only rape or sexual assault where we think that's not enough, hence even the name "he-said, she-said."
And I should point out that, in cases of rape or sexual assault, physical evidence is frequently discounted too: many people make the argument that the grabbed-woman-in-a-park was actually really consenting to public anonymous sex, as evidenced by her clothing, or her being in that area at night, etc., etc. Or, for example, that the maid allegedly raped by Strauss-Kahn was really giving him a consensual beej, and she was just so into it that she tore her rotator cuff (perhaps she was really into BDSM and consenting to have her arm held behind her back?).
In fact, even where facts are not in dispute, people will still modify them in cases of sexual assault to minimize the criminality. For example:
or, indeed when Julian Assange goes to bed with someone at night and decides he'd like a bit more the next morning, then it inevitably descends in to a mess of he-said she-said.
He said he wanted a bit more and slipped it in before she woke up. She said the same thing. There's no he-said, she-said there. Rather, it's about whether his belief that he had her consent was reasonable in view of her previous denial.
We could change this. The law could be changed so that women making a complaint of rape are believed by default. But that is placing the prevention of rape above the priority of protecting the innocent. Do you really believe that this would never be used to persecute the innocent? This would mean that some innocent people go to prison and spend their lives on a sex offenders register because their partners found a cruel way to get back at them.
On the contrary, you're suggesting that women making a complaint of rape shouldn't be believe by default. In other words, you're saying that these women are guilty of making a false report unless they prove themselves to be innocent. I'm going to suggest that you hadn't fully thought through the implications of your statement.
unemployment rate unemployment rate jesse ventura keri russell drew barrymore bill o brien portland trailblazers
No comments:
Post a Comment