Sentenced to 30 years with no evidence, only testimony. Has this always been the case?

I've just heard about Danny Masterson being sentenced to 30 years. What surprised me is that there was no actual evidence against him, and that the jury based their conviction on the testimonies of the two alleged victims. I always thought that the justice system operates on the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty.' Are testimonies considered proof? Has this always been the case?

 

For a rape trial, the jury has to decide if consent was given and often it comes down to if the witnesses are credible. The police investigated the allegations and decided there was grounds to arrest him. Should people get away with sexual assault just because there is only testimony? There actually was evidence of non-consensual sex though in the case of Masterson. Many women don’t report rape because they feel like they won’t be believed especially when the rapist is known to them.

Masterson didn’t testify and his defense team didn’t have anybody testify on his behalf. All they did was try to pick holes in the accusers accounts. I guess the jury believed the victims.

 

"Many women don’t report rape because they feel like they won’t be believed especially when the rapist is known to them."

I agree with this, but it also makes it harder to prove guilt later, and 30 years is a lot of time with no real proof

I think the fact that he was a Scientologist did not help him any

that said, I hope the State and the jury got it right, if they did not, then they created a new victim

 

what I predict in the future is an app, one where both people give their consent on video before sexual acts in the future - that could prevent some false rape claims

 

That is quite a plausible prediction.

 

Testimony is certainly evidence. It probably has been as long as any other form of legal evidence in fact. I'm not on top of this case but a brief search suggests there was indeed limited evidence (which is why there was a previous mistrial due to jury deadlock and why he wasn't convinced of all charges). There would have been other evidence presented in court though, such as the initial police reports and general sequences of events establishing how and why the alleged offender and victim would have been where the offences allegedly took place. It also seems that Masterson chose not to give evidence himself, which he's obviously entitled to do so.

Ultimately, it is on the jury to hear everything presented in court (regardless of whether you personally consider it valid evidence) and reach a conclusion on the basis of the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard. In this case, on one of the charges but not the others, that jury did reach a guilty conclusion. Given they heard all of the evidence in context and we haven't, I don't think we're in a position to second-guess them without any (ironically) evidence that they acted incorrectly.

 

He was convicted on "probably".
But in the acting world you can be easily fooled by testimony.

 

Proof though?

 

Asking "should people get away with" something, assumes that they did it. Did you mean to ask: Should people get away with alleged sexual assault just because there is only testimony?

Physical evidence?

 

One person's word against another's? That is nothing.

 

No, evidence and proof are significantly different things. In this kind of context, the level of proof is built up of all of the evidence available. As I said, testimony was clearly a major part of the evidence in this case but won't have been the be-all and end-all.

 

You are indeed correct that there is something wrong with this case. I'm glad you can see that. Many other people can't.

Usually the testimony of two witnesses is enough to convict someone of a crime.

In more recent times (especially with Feminism gaining ground), the testimony of one woman is enough to convict a man of rape. Traditionally (and according to common sense) the man would be sentenced to much less time for the rape conviction if the only evidence was the woman who claimed he did it, and there was any doubt that she might not be telling the truth.

But fast-forward to very recent times, seemingly just within the last five years, it seems that if two separate women accuse a man of a raping them, then that is used as "evidence" that he must be a "rapist", and therefore is seen as "proof" that both women are telling the truth.

One issue that I see with that is that there still does not exist two witnesses for the same alleged crime. There are only two separate witnesses for two separate alleged crimes. And usually the second witness comes forward only after she sees in the news that that man is already being accused by another woman.

One big problem is that, with the way the courts operate these days, women are automatically awarded large amounts of money for alleged sexual assaults that they claim happened, even though there are no other witnesses and no other evidence it happened. That creates a mal-incentive for women to come forward and claim that they were raped.

Here are two threads you can read:
Jury says Trump has to pay $5 million to woman who accused him of rape (posted in Latest US & World News section, May 9, 2023 )
Was Harvey Weinstein really guilty? (similar situation, except instead of being accused by 2 women, he was accused by over 24 women)

 

But my question is how can any woman be considered credible if she stands to gain a giant amount of money from her allegations?
In recent times the court system in many areas has been awarding women large amounts of money, sometimes over a million dollars, based on an alleged sexual assault that took place years ago, which the woman never reported at the time, and now where the only evidence is that woman's own testimony.

A lot of accusers may have a motivation to want to see the man criminally convicted in court, because then it will be easy to win a lawsuit against him, for an alleged act that he has already been convicted of.

 

To answer your question, it seems to have greatly accelerated in American society after the #MeToo movement beginning in 2017.
Most of these recent cases have been in the states of California and New York (which are the most politically & socially "progressive" states).

 

Actually, does "proof" even play a role in the courts? As you say, the jury reach a conclusion on the basis of the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard, which is based on the evidence presented. It seems to me that it cannot be said with 100% certainty that someone is guilty, outside of a High Definition video of the person committing the crime, with the face clearly seen, in which it could be said with 100% certainty that they are guilty, or in other words: "proof." Although I guess it would be different if the person has an identical twin.

 

You mean that it SHOULD be nothing?

 

Asking "should people get away with" something, assumes that they did it. Did you mean to ask: Should people get away with alleged sexual assault just because there is only testimony?

Physical evidence?

 

No, I meant to ask if somebody should get away with rape just because there is only testimony. I am not addressing alleged rapes, I am specifically asking should an actual rapist get away with rape based on the fact there is no direct forensic evidence. I think it’s a reasonable question and something to consider apart from ‘alleged’. In this case I am assuming a rape actually occurred and should a rapist walk free because excellent circumstantial evidence isn’t enough.

 

Well yes, because the full phrase is "proven beyond reasonable doubt". It is precisely because of the recognition that nothing can be proven with 100% certainty that principle was established. There can also be different "levels" of proof required in different contexts, such as civil courts or charging rather than conviction.

 

yeah, it's a tough one, in your example, we want them to go to prison for a long time

but we also have false accusers, and the same question could be asked, should they get away with it because there is only testimony from the accused saying they did not do it

I would feel just as unsure if we gave 30 years to a potential false accuser based on no real evidence other than he said\she said - all I could do is hope the jury got it right

 

Good point. I don’t know how a juror can decide ‘reasonable doubt’ based on a she said/he said situation.

I really detest people that lie about rape. It’s quite a low percentage but still a disgusting thing to do. A false rape accusation ruins lives.

 

Yes. People put too much faith in testimony as well as confessions.

Just look at Kavanaugh. A woman was actually allowed to testify before congress, "I don't know when, where, or how, but Kavanaugh raped me and I'm a victim, so I should be believed." And leftists all over cheered.

 

One of the big issues, as far as I can tell, before about the mid-1980s, awarding money in lawsuits for sexual assaults was not something that existed in the courts.
But over some years, it seems to have just become accepted as normal practice.

Of course it becomes very problematic when a woman can sue for money, because that then creates a huge incentive for false allegations.

States like New York and California have not helped by rolling back the statute of limitations practically to non-existence. (Meaning the law was changed to say that a woman can get money for an alleged assault that she says happened 25 years ago)

 

No, it's a pretty high percentage.

Sexual Assault Statistics | National Sexual Violence Resource Center (NSVRC)

We're up to 20% of women claiming to be raped. Men are piling on. 1 in 4 are claiming to be sexual assaulted now.

FBI — Table 1

FBI statistics on reported rape aren't even close to that. Whoever are doing these surveys are convincing people to admit they are raped at rates many times higher than they actually report to police.

People are lying in these surveys, so what makes you think they won't lie elsewhere? Or maybe the people taking the surveys are lying? Or do you think the FBI is lying? Or do you use "New Math" to make it all work?

 

Eyewitness testimony is evidence, and has always been considered as such-- remember, all the CSI stuff, is a fairly recent development, in criminal justice. That said, it is not the strongest evidence, but this varies greatly. For example, there have been people convicted of serious crimes like rape and even murder, primarily on someone claiming to have seen the accused, fleeing the scene of the crime. But this type of ID of a stranger, often limited to a very brief glimpse, and at a distance, has been overturned in numerous cases, since DNA evidence has come into widespread use. These cases usually also contain a racial constituent: that is, are normally cases in which a white witness has picked out a black suspect (and often, for a white jury); studies, however, have shown that people of one race are less adept at distinguishing between individuals of a different race-- so there is at something, to the old line, "they all look alike to me."

This is a much different situation, than being attacked while in the company of someone with whom the victim is familiar: false ID of the wrong person, then becomes a negligible concern. Then it comes down, to a good degree, on the credibility of the two people involved (if there are no other witnesses). This doesn't change the criterion, upon which, juries are supposed to decide: beyond a reasonable doubt. While I have no familiarity with this case (have no idea who "Masterson" is), nevertheless, if someone gives credible testimony of being certain of something, in a situation when it is believable that a person could be certain, and the defense cannot establish reasonable doubt that the accuser is lying-- which most people, I don't believe, do, in court; especially in criminal cases, in which their perjury would itself, be a crime of not insignificant magnitude-- then I can certainly see that leading, to a jury being convinced the victim is telling the truth, especially if the accused doesn't present his own, convincing testimony.

Again, I don't know anything of this particular case, and I see no link in your OP. Oftentimes there may be supporting evidence, as well, like bruising (if the alleged rape was, shortly afterward, reported; or if the victim had sought medical attention). Even just the victim's having told another person about the event, and that person's testifying that the victim was manifesting behavior indicative of such a psychologically damaging experience, can weigh in the accuser's favor.

Of course, this makes possible, a fraudulent conviction, but I don't think those are as common, as many men may think. Remember, the accused would not only have to convince 12 jurors, beyond reasonable doubt, but also the police investigators-- who do hear the story from the perspective of the accused-- and the prosecutor. These officers of the court, are generally savvy enough, to not be so easily misled; when something doesn't smell right, they are apt to notice. I would guess that one would need be an exceptional actress, to get her rape accusation, with no other evidence, all the way to a court conviction, of an innocent man.