5 girls accuse boy of sexual assault. Later admitted it never happen.

If they have no proof? Yes, they should be. Think of virtually every other crime from murder to petty theft and you'll find some form of physical evidence. But in the #Metoo era, hey a female member of our species can claim a sexual assault happened, and we'll "believe her!". Now, flip this around and a guy claimed he was sexually assaulted by a woman. Will we "believe him?" Hell no we wouldn't. We wouldn't even believe domestic violence cases(as evidenced when a girl initiates violence, but god forbid the dude defends himself.)

And should the "pendulum" swing back? Honestly, reading a quick recap of the rape laws, I believe they should. It burdens the accuser with the need for actual physical evidence, you know like every other crime in criminal stature? A statement is NOT evidence of anything, but at best the accuser's state of mind. Which, again, doesn't prove anything and it doesn't clarify anything.

A perfect case in point will always be Ms. Ford. Who believes that she was sexually assaulted, but can't prove it. She can't even prove that it was *him* who did it. In a normal court of order, this would be rejected in a flat few minutes. Because sexual assault/rape is so significant of a charge, it has to be treated with the same evidential standards as murder or other felony crimes.(Because sexual assault/rape are in fact felonies.)

"But it would let them act with impunity!" If women let that happen, then yes. They've been given the tools, the rape kit, etc. It's not OUR responsibility to lower the standards because women don't want to seek justice against their attacker until conveniently well after the fact, for whatever reasons that possesses them at the time.

If you're a woman, and you were raped or sexually assaulted, what you do is you contact authorities at the first opportunity that presents itself to you, get yourself to a hospital and get the bastard charged. That's your obligation. Anything less, and yes the justice system will not be as empowered to deal with it.

You can't use the justice system to deal with things that happened(may have happened *cough cough* ) in the 70's, 80's or 90's.(We're almost two decades into the 2000's, who would've thought?). If there's anything I hate more than anything from the incident, it's using the US Senate as basically a therapy session for her. That's NOT what the US Senate is for. It's not what the FBI is for, and it's not what law enforcement is for.

This whole thing has been a debacle. And this debacle, is not caused in anyway by President Trump. It's caused by the #Metooer's who think that they can use their gender as a weapon against people they don't like. And in your world, they can, have and have caused extraordinary amount of damage to the legal system.

I now have a new personal crusade: Restoring the legal system, after the #Metoo attack against it. A restoration of the rape laws, is most certainly an avenue in question and if women don't like it: That's the burden of the legal system in every other criminal case. As a plantiff you are not entitled to the court ruling affirmatively for you. You have to make a case that will impel the court to do so.

https://criminal.findlaw.com/crimin...the-police-follow-while-making-an-arrest.html

You'll automatically know where I'm going with this: Their claim, in of itself does not raise itself to the standard of probable cause. Therefore, the kid had an undue loss of liberty due to #Metoo. Probable Cause, by the definition given to us from Lawfare: "More likely than not.". On that note, we have to get rid of the assumption that more claims equals higher probable cause. It doesn't. Unless the stories themselves are consistent(the irony of the Dem hackjob is they forgot the most important aspect of chained claims.)

In reality, the kid should perhaps have been suspended(but not expelled), while the investigation was ongoing. No charges should be filed until a complete investigation is had. Which means not only talking to both the accused and the accusers, but to show just how angry I am with #Metoo, let's mandate that every person who makes an accusation submits a rape kit to prove the crime.

Seriously. If to make a charge, a person has to have a physical examination of their body then this whole thing dies. Making rape kits mandatory, not optional will end #Metoo.

It's sick just how far some people want to impede or undermine the law, to accomplish an objective. Then we don't live in our glorified western society anymore.

 

Actually, a substantial number of cases(44%) are withdrawn from the courts without resolution. It's not that rapists 'walk free', but that the 'accusers'(unlike these idiots), recognizing the legal reprecussions walk away. I think a very famous case is the Kobe Bryant one in Colorado. She couldn't very well prove rape, but she could prove sexual intercourse so she decided to financially settle.(Leave it to the rich, to show us how it's done.)

Among those 44%, are likely more Duke Lacrosses, that thankfully didn't reach the point where it entered a courtroom falsely and thus to further embarrass our legal system. More Rolling Stones, etc. The desire to lynch men, for the actions of those who actually rape have undermined criminal law.

The gusto for these criminal charges, is actually undermining rape cases all over. So, wanna rethink the legal approach?

 

Nobody delivers proof on an offence when they make any criminal accusation. They might provide evidence and the police will seek further evidence and, if (and only if) there is sufficient for there to be a likely prosecution will it be taken to court. Only there does "proof" come in to it.

I totally agree some of the attitudes, historically as well as recently, are flatly wrong. The concept of "always believe her" is flawed but then your concept of "never believe her" is flawed too. The police can only take statements from people, both alleged victims and alleged offenders, on face value and seek further evidence around them. They might be seeking evidence of the offence or evidence of an alibi, the principles should be the same.

You're wrong about physical evidence. Plenty of convictions can be legitimately brought without direct physical evidence of the crime. For example, you might be able to prove a crime occurred (say missing property or a dead body) and evidence a suspect was present (CCTV or witnesses) but no physical evidence they committed the crime but sufficient circumstantial evidence can allow a strong conviction. It's more difficult and more prone to error but that is a poor reason to dismiss it entirely without question.

We're not talking about the Kavanagh/Ford mess, which shouldn't have happened and came to the right result. We're talking about a child alleging someone raped her and multiple witnesses who apparently supported that. We don't have the details of exactly what they claimed and what evidence they presented but it would have been wrong for the police to just send her on her way without even hearing her out and investigating. The rights and wrongs of everything after that point depends on the specific details we don't have. I think it's perfectly possible the police acted correctly based on the evidence they had, the school was probably in the wrong unless they'd been misinformed in some way.

 

Dunno who the hell that is, not watching any dumbass video.

 

No worries, dude. Have a really nice day, sir.

 

I agree-
It is correct and important to recognize that false claims do taint legitimate ones, and that they cause harm to those people as well as the person the charge is directed at. This is a difficult crime to properly support and punish, but that just means that in doing what we can, we must do it carefully and properly- and the investigation should precede the publicity. Wrongful claims are usually with the intent of doing harm, of branding someone- and thus publicity is fundamental to that working. Once a person is tainted with such an allegation, there will always be some who suspect it is true regardless of exoneration.

 

It's not "never believe her", it's "taking her accusation from a neutral perspective and then investigating before any legal activity is filed." Part of #Metoo's damage has come through the media, and I wouldn't be surprised if one day a trial was declared a mistrial because of these idiots. There's a reason you don't charge a case through the public.

You are right that sufficient circumstantial evidence can at times build a convicting case. There's however different levels of 'circumstantial evidence'. The CCTV IMO borderlines on physical evidence, unless the defense makes a wild claim that the tape was altered. But when we deal with witness testimony, that's where it becomes dicey. Preferably the stories stay consistent, preferably it shows a pattern. Witnesses who allege something that's totally different from other stories will either undermine their story, the other's stories or all of the above.

Such as what reportedly happened in this case. Witnesses/building cases are most effective when their stories/other alleged incidents match up with the first. That's when it becomes compelling.

I'm not anti-women. I have a grandmother, a mom and a sister and I value and cherish all of them. I wouldn't want to live in a world where they're seen as meat. I also don't want to live in a world where my brother(or myself) would be accused of something that isn't true, and having to fight an uphill battle to prove that it wasn't true.

And will I be vindicated for my innocence? That, has been on full display with these public media cases: None. Once you're accused/branded, you're screwed for life. And that more than anything is why I was defending Brett Kavanaugh. I put myself in his shoes, and thought 'that easily could be me, accused of something with no physical evidence tying me to the crime but nevertheless, the Hirono's of the world do not believe in equality under the law.)

 

I think we're largely in agreement here. It's mainly a wording issue but the bad wording comes from both directions. Remember, I was responding to someone stating "This is what you get when you accept claims of sexual assault". That sentiment is no better than "Believer her!".

What should actually happen in the legal process isn't any different to any other serious case. Rape and sexual assault cases often involve specific difficulties and highly emotive aspects but that's true of other classes of case too.

 

I suppose my main problem is, our generic political position is that we shouldn't 'govern the bedroom', but that's exactly what sex crimes are: An attempt to govern the bedroom. Now, there's those awful rapes where a woman's life is in danger, and clearly we wouldn't want that. But by and large, a lot of these he/she said cases is one where consent was at first present, but at some point in time(atypically these days in college campuses, after the damn fact) they want to withdraw 'consent'.

Communication basically is important in bed, and I want to make sure this isn't excusing anything but if you say don't give any inclinations until the last minute(or literally the last nano-second) from a hormone standpoint, it can be hard to stop(though you should, obviously.)

Basically, I feel as though there's different degrees of rape/sexual assault then, and that for these non-violent cases, the last thing we need is to throw more people in prison. Instead, I think a 'restraining' order will do, and the parties shouldn't interact with each other in these non-violent cases.

 

Speaking of illogical assumptions...