Did the man really "rape" her if she didn't immediately leave him?

A woman claims that her boyfriend she was with raped her. However, multiple witnesses claim they saw the two together at a party the day after the alleged "rape" took place, and the two were talking to each other and acting normal, like a typical couple.

You are on a jury. Would you be willing to find the man guilty of "rape"?


I know that hypothetical may sound totally absurd to many of you (as well it should sound absurd), but in this day and age of Feminism, there are many people who seem to believe the man should still be found guilty in that situation. That just because the woman did not immediately leave him does not mean that a "rape" didn't take place.

 

Could you possibly oversimplify an criminal case, and insult our intelligence more, than with a two sentence trial summary and a demand of a jury verdict? A single 'tweet' contains more

I'll answer you exactly as you deserve to be answered. I would be willing to find the man guilty, if I believed the state's rape case was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. You get to figure out if that's what happened here in your hypothetical.

 

The only evidence is the woman's claim and testimony.

That is most commonly the case in these rape accusations.

You're trying to make this much more complicated than it is because you want to avoid answering the question, I suspect.

 

Its ludicrous. So I have to ask you 400 questions, pretending to cross examine while you pretend to be this woman to see if I find her specific story credible in detail and convincing in the telling?

No I do not.

 

No you don't. You just make your decision based only on the information that is provided to you in the opening post. There is no other additional information.
What more would you realistically need?

Are you claiming you might find the man guilty if you see and hear the woman and her story seems credible to you, based entirely on what her story is, how she is talking and acting on the witness stand?

If it makes it at all easier for you, she admits she went to the party the next day with her boyfriend, and that she had slept with him numerous times in the past.

 

the entire story in detail, repeated over and over again , and cross examined and challenged and tested - for a start. I need to believe her beyond a reasonable doubt. Soo you tell me does the DA this case meet that standard of proof before I deliberate? If so, I will convict. If not I will not.

 

I am thinking there is much damage done to the vagina of an unwilling women, such as there would be in a rape. If she self lubricates.. could it ever be rape? No.. I don't think so,,, it would be somekind of sex game.

 

That could be one factor here. I had not thought of that.

(But if he added artificial lubrication... )

I think many would find your ideas on that hopelessly old-fashioned.


Anyway, these are details we don't really know, unless the woman on the witness stand tells us.

Is it possible she might lie and exaggerate to try to get the man convicted? Maybe she feels that she was raped but she is afraid others might not see it that way, so she lies about certain details of that sexual encounter.

 

Have you ever known anyone who was psychologically or emotionally abused? It is, to my mind, the most insidious kind of abuse. Cuts and bruises heal, but the emotional and mental damage goes on for the rest of their lives. Even when they've eventually extricated themselves from the relationship, their responses to normal situations can be regarded as bizarre by others who have no knowledge of their past.

Having said all of that - and with the information provided - she may well be a victim of that kind of abuse. The night previous she may have said no to the BF, but he didn't listen. As is typical of that kind of abuser, they think they know better than their victim. Always. She might have just accepted that he didn't know better than her. And the next morning and day after, life goes back to their version of normal. She was still raped the night before - but because she is mentally and emotionally trapped, she can't just 'leave'. It wouldn't be uncommon to see them the following day looking 'normal'.

That is only just one scenario in which I would find the woman credible and deliver a guilty verdict.

 

So you're saying, depending on the details of her testimony, you may be able to believe the woman and convict the man of rape, even if she showed up to a party with that same man the next day and seemed to have a reasonably good time with him then.

 

It's bad, but it can be very legally tricky to deal with that.

Apparently you are willing to convict the man of old past rapes, even if the woman continued to stay with him after that? Like, suppose they still remained a couple, but then finally when the relationship comes to an end the woman goes to police and tells them he raped her four months ago. You would be willing to convict him if she made it sound like that one rape was part of a "continuing pattern of abuse".

 

It also begs the question whether that "rape" was so bad if she continued to stay with him.

You see the trade-off here between protecting the rights of the man and protecting the rights of the woman.
There could indeed be some legitimate situation where the boyfriend deserves to be punished. But it could also be that the fact she appeared in public with him the next day was evidence the alleged rape never actually happened, or that what happened wasn't really anywhere close to real rape.

It could very likely also be that the real reason she decided to come forward with the "rape" allegations is that she was later angry at him for some other reason. For example, maybe he had sex with her one night even though she didn't really want to (but she didn't resist too much), alcohol may have been involved, and then four months later he tries to leave her and that's when she decides to come forward with the rape allegations and try to get him punished.

 

The day after? Heck, from what we've seen it's still a legitimate claim 30 years later when they're nominated to the Supreme Court.

 

Many Feminists want no statute of limitations on rape claims.

She could come back and accuse him of rape three failed marriages later. "My husband raped me in my first marriage. Go arrest him! Even though I'm on to marriage number three"

 

Yeah.

To be fair, I can understand a woman being traumatized and, perhaps, questioning whether her own actions lead to a "misunderstanding". I've even run into a "stop" situation when "start" was 10 minutes earlier. Sometimes signals get crossed.

 

How many ways can I say this? The prosecutor has the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Trials are all about providing them an opportunity to provide that proof to a jury. Your hypothetical does not replace the need for a trial, with opposing counsel, and testimony with cross examination, and redirect about the alleged crime. If I am supposed to be a juror, I had better listen to direct testimony from the alleged victim and perpetrator and any other witnesses presented. Its my job not to make up my mind based on someone's summary presentation of the facts. That would be you in this hypothetical. You are like the 'CNN or Fox NEWS reporter. I am supposed to ignore what you say.

My first answer in post # 2 stands.

 

You just don't want to answer the question.
It's pretty simple. There is no need to make it complicated.

Tell me, can you even give us one example of the type of additional evidence that you would need to vote guilty?

 

An audio confession by the accused during police interview would be a nice..

 

Once again, we are making assumptions because we don't have all the information. But the question of whether the rape was 'so bad' suggests that you don't fully understand rape.

 

I would be willing to convict him of rape if the rape was proved.

 

n0. I would not

 

A statement like that really doesn't make too much sense in this discussion.

Very rarely is a rape ever "proved", with absolute certainty. There is evidence, and that evidence shows a likelihood that the crime happened.
In this case, we have "evidence" suggesting that a real rape may likely not have taken place.

Maybe I can ask it to you this way, give us one example of the type of evidence you would need to find this man guilty.

Given the fact that we know she was seen at a party the day after the alleged incident, together with him and not seeming to have any problem. So what level or type of evidence would you need to overcome that bit of evidence in this case?

 

What information?
What other information do you need? Your statement really seems confusing to me.

I gave you all the information in the opening post. Are you saying you would not be able or willing to find the man guilty in this situation, if that was the only information and evidence available to you?

 

I think I explained my thoughts thoroughly in my first post to this thread. You and I obviously see rape as different things and through a different lens. You have a couple (if not several) threads on the subject, usually contending that the alleged rape did not occur. I don't know if that means that you have personal experience with the subject, or its a bee in your bonnet. Either way, I've posted my thoughts and will bow out. I'm sorry if my responses confuse you or make no sense to you. I suggest you move on, as I will, and have a nice day.

 

Oh, so that's pretty much the only way these rape cases could ever be proved, if the criminal confesses.
That sounds so cliche.

Okay, so how about if he does NOT confess? (Isn't this the vast majority of criminal situations?)