rape: a matter of opinion

[Lorizael]

Damage to the vaginal area is usually important. Also any scarring to indicate that the person was bound in any way. Rapists usually aren't the slow and steady type.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Drogue
No, rape is having sex with someone against their will.

And if she viewed it differently, then he's admitting it was against her will. That's rape.

[Drogue]

So if she consented, but her will was that she didn't want to have sex, that would be rape too?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Lorizael
Rapists usually aren't the slow and steady type.

Sez you. Date rape is generally non-violent. That doesn't make it not rape.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Drogue
So if she consented, but her will was that she didn't want to have sex, that would be rape too?

It depends on whether its true consent, i.e., no coercion.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Drogue
DNA evidence that they had sex, and her testimony that it was non-consensual. It's up to the jury to decide if there is any reasonable doubt that she is lying.

I would actually restate to say that they must have no reasonable doubt that her account is truthful.


Azazel-- in almost all rape cases it is a he said she said situation since there are almost never any witnesses. If the sex is admitted by both parties then the only issue is whether or not there is consent.

Unfortunately, the woman that resists more, possibly risking her own death, is much more likely to be believed. When there is no physical trauma for the offender to explain , it is a lot easier to craft a plausible consent story.

All that said, I believe that prosecuters get convictions in a fair number of these type of cases. Juries and judges tend to believe complainants since false claims of rape are viewed as relatively rare

[Flubber]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Sez you. Date rape is generally non-violent. That doesn't make it not rape.

Agreed. If the rapist merely threatens violence, that enough.


But take a standard date situation. back at her place, kissing takes place and then at some point the guy makes his move and slowly slides his hand to an intimate location. No protest at all. he slowly increases the intimacy level until 15 minutes later both are undressed. he says " I want you to do x and y". She does.

She has never explicitly consented to anything and he has threatened nothing. Lets say he is a good guy and would never never raise a hand to anyone. lets just say that any objective person watching this would see "consensual sex" with no indications otherwise. But the woman was beaten by her last 3 boyfriends and in her own mind if she didn't comply, she would be beaten ( not because of ANYTHING this guy did but because of her past experiences).

Is anyone really suggesting this is rape? If anyone does, how does getting her to verbalize her consent change anything since it would be given by her only because she expects a beating if she doesn't give it, despite the fact that the current guy has done nothing even remotely aggressive?

[Az]

DNA evidence that they had sex, and her testimony that it was non-consensual. It's up to the jury to decide if there is any reasonable doubt that she is lying.

Azazel-- in almost all rape cases it is a he said she said situation since there are almost never any witnesses. If the sex is admitted by both parties then the only issue is whether or not there is consent.

Unfortunately, the woman that resists more, possibly risking her own death, is much more likely to be believed. When there is no physical trauma for the offender to explain , it is a lot easier to craft a plausible consent story.

All that said, I believe that prosecuters get convictions in a fair number of these type of cases. Juries and judges tend to believe complainants since false claims of rape are viewed as relatively rare

so the defendant must prove his innocence, and not the other way around?

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Sez you. Date rape is generally non-violent. That doesn't make it not rape.

There are three different kinds of rape. Date rape is one kind. The most frequent type of rape is committed by people very close to the rape victim, and it generally is violent because it represents repressed urges on the part of the rapist. It's an action that would not normally take place between the two individuals involved, so force is required to make it happen.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Azazel
so the defendant must prove his innocence, and not the other way around?

No. As I said, if the jury has reasonable doubt in her story, they must aquit. There can be doubt and conviction, but if there is reasonable doubt, then they must aquit.

[Az]

'reasonable doubt' is very vague. My question is: Is a case of "one person's word against another" good enough for a lengthy sentencing.

The whole issue seems so undefined...justice is so tricky.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Azazel

so the defendant must prove his innocence, and not the other way around?

Nope- still the prosecutions burden


But if the victim gets up there and is totally believable, that burden can be met and the defense will have a heck of a time

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Azazel
'reasonable doubt' is very vague. My question is: Is a case of "one person's word against another" good enough for a lengthy sentencing.

Yes-- if they believe one and not the other. Juries have the ability to detrermine the weight they give to testimony.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Azazel

so the defendant must prove his innocence, and not the other way around?

That's pretty much how it seems to work, at least where I come from. At least if the woman was a "good girl".

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Azazel
'reasonable doubt' is very vague. My question is: Is a case of "one person's word against another" good enough for a lengthy sentencing.

Reasonable doubt is the legal term in the UK. "Prove beyond reasonable doubt". And with one person's word against another, if the jury has no reasonable doubt left, they can convict on it.