More evidence that a woman's word is sacred in court

[Al B. Sure!]

, using your own knowledge of society and how people think, whether a jury would just slam the jail cell on someone on the basis of a "mere" accusation. It's never this simple.

Yes. Absolutely yes. Abso-****ing-lutely without a doubt in my mind. There is a sacred cow in the justice system and in society in general. Women and children are sacred cows.

[Elok]

It's not as bad as you think, Al. The majority of made-up rapes go unreported.

[Al B. Sure!]

The jury will come into the court-room with their own biases. Those biases are most definitely against the man.

And it goes beyond juries in criminal matters. How do men fare in custody arguments?

[loinburger]

Which do you consider to be the greater problem, and to what extent do the problems differ in magnitude: rape, or false accusations of rape.

[-Jrabbit]

Dude, it might help if your POV on rape prosecutions was based on something more realistic than ESPN.

The jury will come into the court-room with their own biases.

Sure, pro athletes are targets of golddiggers. Duh. But said athletes can also afford qualified legal defense -- which would address areas like jury selection. Sadly, many refuse to keep themselves out of the crosshairs, as they would rather party like they were back in college.

And don't confuse the issue by bringing custody cases into the discussion. Please stick to one of your myopic overreactions per thread.

[Jon Miller]

Which do you consider to be the greater problem, and to what extent do the problems differ in magnitude: rape, or false accusations of rape.

If every false accusation of rape ended up in a conviction, then it would be 'rape of an innocent' versus 'imprisoning an innocent'.

I think the latter is actually worse.

JM
(Not to defend Alby's position.)

[-Jrabbit]

I'm pretty sure no one here supports the jailing of innocents.

[Zevico]

It's not as bad as you think, Al. The majority of made-up rapes go unreported.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLpUatutZDw

[giblets]

I'm pretty sure no one here supports the jailing of innocents.

Jailing them will preserve their innocence. Jailing innocents

[MikeH]

Explain this case, then. Explain Brian Banks. Explain what appears to keep happening.

And it's not that these are high profile cases. These are stories broke by ESPN because the defendants were athletes. What about all the stories that ESPN doesn't report on?

What are the best estimates of numbers of rapes in the US?

What number get prosecuted?

What number get convicted?

What proportion of those convictions are wrongful?

What is the racial breakdown of those wrongful convictions?

How do those proportions match up with other violent crimes?

Get all those figures and you'll have a clearer picture.

Also the media reports heavily every one of the few wrongful convictions, how do they report the vastly greater numbers of rapes that go unpunished? How does this reflect the media bias?

You can't judge the big picture on any issue like this without looking at the big picture.

[MikeH]

The jury will come into the court-room with their own biases. Those biases are most definitely against the man.

Do the figures back that up?

In the UK of all cases that go to court the conviction rate is 57%, for rape it's 58%. ie. Rape prosecutions are pretty much the average conviction rate. So no evidence of bias against the rapist there.

What are the US figures?

[Flubber]

I'm sure that since it was two of them, that their testimony carried a bit more weight.

THIS!!!!!!

[Flubber]

This thread right here is an example of why you can't find a girlfriend Alby.

Also THIS!!!!!!

[Flubber]

My question is where was the evidence of conviction?

Last time I posted a thread on the Brian Banks case, I was told that the conviction rate for rape is low because a lot of cases wind up as 'he said, she said' without any evidence.

Here, there was no evidence but 'she said'. And yet, conviction.

Explain please.

Alby

1. In any given case anything an freaking happen and it's impossible to design a justice system where some errors will not be made. It's not just rape cases as DNA reversed murder cases and witnesses and evidence can be mistaken or misunderstood in any type of case. We set the bar as beyond all reasonable doubt and judges hammer that home .... Lots of guilty go free because of that standard

2. In a rape case the evidence is often he said she said but a rape trial is a gruelling thing for an accuser/victim where you know a trained defense attorney will try to portray her as drunk, stoned, mistaken , lying ***** ice queen, slut, or whatever else will damage her credibility. Before that the police and prosecutors will generally have been over her story with a fine tooth comb looking for the problems with her credibility too. Those folks are generally busy folks with no desire to push forward anything that isn't real.


3. Here I understand that a jury heard at least two unrelated women tell a similar story about the same night. To most juries, and to most reasonable people generally, if you hear the exact same account from two different eyewitness sources with no connection or collaboration, you become reasonably certain that it's factual and accurate,


Of course there are some liars out there. But sometimes there is no lie and a jury believes a victim because she is telling the simple truth. And a jury's empowered to find a witness credible. In that case if they believe testimony, they may convict. In this case, even If the accused did the act, he would have been far more likely to get away with it if there was only one accusing witness. With two accusers, his chances were slim unless he had SOMETHING big in his favor

[-Jrabbit]

Jailing them will preserve their innocence. Jailing innocents

I guess I stand corrected.