Accusations of rape when evidence shows the woman was going to have sex with the man

In a growing number of cases these days, men are being convicted of rape, based only on a woman's accusations - no other evidence - even though there is 100% proof that the woman was preparing to and had the intention to have sex with that man.

In the Mike Tyson case, the judge even prevented the jury from hearing about the fact that the alleged rape victim was sitting in Tyson's lap and had her thighs wrapped around him, shortly before she entered the bedroom with him. The judge considered this fact "irrelevant" to the case, thinking it might "prejudice" the jury.
(more about that case in this thread: New York eliminates statute of limitations for sexual crimes )

The logic there is that, yes, she might have displayed clear signs that she was going to have sex with him, but a woman can still change her mind at any point, and that does not mean that she was not raped.

In my opinion, if there is clear evidence the woman was preparing to have sex with the man, that should drastically reduce the amount of punishment -- if any -- the accused man should get.

Yes, of course it is possible that she still could have been raped, but this does 2 things. First, I think, when there is a rape accusation, and no other corroborating evidence, the fact that she seemed like she was going to have sex with him reduces the likelihood that the allegations are true. I think if the chance the accused might be innocent is greater, they should get much less punishment, even though it might be appropriate to still punish them.
Second, I would argue that if a woman were planning to have sex with a man, even though she changed her mind later, it suggests that the violation to her is less. This was a man she was seriously considering having sex with. It should result in less punishment.
If we don't take this evidence into account, what other evidence realistically could a man use to defend himself against a false rape accusation? There is pretty much none. That wouldn't be fair to the man and would be one-sided.

Imagine a woman accuses a man of rape BUT there is security video camera evidence of the woman leading the man into the bedroom, with her arms wrapped around him flirtatiously. She also met him on an internet site where people hook-up for casual sex. The two even exchanged nude pictures of each other, and the woman sent him messages talking about sexually dirty things. Should all that be completely irrelevant?

Some people in modern times think it should not matter, that it should not make any difference in a rape case. Maybe some of them even think the jury should not be allowed to hear about it.
But I think this view is absurd.

In older times (say, the 1950s, maybe even up to the 1980s in many places) there was no way anyone on a jury was going to convict a man if they knew the woman entered the bedroom to sleep with the man. "What type of woman does that?"

 

Consent isn't a yes/pass go situation.

It is required throughout the entire process.

 

Already addressed that.

The issue isn't that a woman isn't allowed to change her mind. The issue is what can be used as evidence in the accused man's defense.

It's actually illegal for a man to use a secret camera filming the woman having sex with him, so if this can't be used, there is no way a man can defend himself against any accusation, if he sleeps with a woman.

 

Look, it's one thing if we, as a society, have decided that we are willing to put a man in prison (for a long time) based only on the accusation of a woman when there is no evidence. That may be acceptable even though it is problematic.

It's another thing when we have evidence that the woman was going to have sex with him but we are still willing to put the man in prison based on her accusation.

Those two are not exactly the same thing. The second is taking things to another level.

I'm just saying, it gets more difficult to believe her when there is evidence she wanted sex. It is ultimately a "he said, she said" situation.

 

Yea, when wrongful convictions for rape become a problem, let me know.

Far more rapes go unresolved than men who are wrongfully convicted.

Don't bring up Mike Tyson like its some sign of a widespread problem.

 

Men being wrongfully convicted of rape is not a meaningful problem.

 

What kind of 'evidence' would that be?

Are some people set up? Sure, but not many, and if you are dumb enough to enter into a situation which makes it possible, then shame on you.

 

Did you even read the first post?

"Imagine a woman accuses a man of rape BUT there is security video camera evidence of the woman leading the man into the bedroom, with her arms wrapped around him flirtatiously. She also met him on an internet site where people hook-up for casual sex. The two even exchanged nude pictures of each other, and the woman sent him messages talking about sexually dirty things."
​

In the Mike Tyson case, there were two other witnesses who testified that the woman was sitting in his lap that evening with her thighs wrapped around his body.
I'd say that's a pretty sexually charged signal.

 

Why do you keep bringing up Mike Tyson like there are thousands of poor men that suffered the same fate as him?

Men being wrongly convicted for rape is almost nonexistent. It is not a problem.

There is a much greater problem with rapes not being reported or solved. It is a much greater problem than poor men being falsely accused.

 

Hard to tell if this is even sarcasm.

 

There are.

Some people seem to be naive about how the justice system works, or in denial.

It's an issue.

 

not sarcasm at all.

It almost never happens.

 

That's actually not even a logical argument.

The vast majority of those cases go "unresolved" because they have no idea who the perpetrator might be.

(Unless you were only referring to the cases where a woman does recognize who her attacker is)

Besides that, just because -- let's say completely hypothetically -- 90% of accused men don't get convicted, that would not necessarily be any reason to convict, say, 30% of them rather than only 10%.

I think what you're really trying to say (you didn't do it very well) is that you think women should be believed when they accuse a man of rape, and you believe most of the time they are not. The second part of that (what the current situation is) still has no bearing on how things should ideally be.

Claiming that "far more rapes go unresolved" has no bearing on any logical argument.

 

It's not an argument, it's a statement of fact.

 

Sorry, but arms wrapped around his neck is not evidence of anything other than the fact that she was a flirt. If she said 'no' at any time, and he ignored it, then its rape. Pure and simple. Did she plan it? There is a good chance she did, and he fell for it. Mike Tyson was an idiot. Everyone knows who he is and that he has millions in the bank, so any stranger can easily flirt with him and let him believe she is a sure thing, but if she says 'no' and he doesn't' stop, then she is pretty much guaranteed to win the case. That's the law, and its not new. Even the case you are talking about it 40 yrs old.

The solution is simple: Don't put yourself in that situation.

 

My argument is that, since we cannot know what happened with certainty, the fact she seemed to be acting that way makes the statistical probability that she was actually raped less.

Of course it doesn't prove she wasn't raped. Just like her accusation alone doesn't prove she was.

In these sorts of cases, evidence is not proof.

 

We should be trying to do things that encourage more women to report rape, not things that make it easier for men to get away with rape.

It's already really easy for men to get away with rape.

 

Some people may be mistakenly thinking I am saying that a woman has no right to change her mind. That is not the principle of what I am saying. If we had, for example, security video camera evidence that the woman was trying to push the man off her before the sexual act actually began (a hypothetical but unlikely scenario), then yes the man should be convicted of rape.

 

Unfortunately, that's also the reason so few women get punished even when evidence is discovered indicating that she was probably lying.

Even if we think there's a 60% chance she is lying, no one wants to risk punishing a woman who might have actually been raped and came forward to report it.

 

Again, this isn't a significant problem.

It's clear that you have a problem with women. You may not realize it, but your concern over this stems from something deep inside you.

 

So you claim.

That sounds like a discussion for another thread.

I've posted countless stories in this Law & Justice section about men getting wrongfully accused and convicted.

 

countless? how many is that?

500 or even 1000 examples still wouldn't be a significant number.

We should be making it easier for rape to be prosecuted, not harder.

 

That sort of statement assumes that it is hard for rape to be prosecuted.

I do not believe that is currently the case.

 

Then you don't know anything about it.

Most reported rapes never even result in charges being brought, much less wrongful convictions

 

That is still not a reason why charges should be brought, in any specific case.