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

Some disagree with you. It is important to realize that, that there is a huge segment of society who hold a different perspective from you. (I mean like nearly half of society, maybe more than that)
Some believe a man should be sent to prison if a woman accuses him of rape, even if there is no other evidence.
Of course, the question is how much prison time, in this sort of situation (because obviously it's less than solid proof).

 

People keep bringing up conviction rates, but that is actually not very logically relevant to the argument for this issue.

Maybe you would like to attempt to try to logically explain exactly how it is actually relevant?

If 50% or 90%, or even 98%, of these women who are lying do not end up being believed, why should that change how such cases are treated?

I mean, the frequency of cases of injustice shouldn't change how a case of that injustice should be treated.

 

Because you were acting like it was so easy for any woman to shed a few crocodile tears, and get a man convicted of rape. Well, it doesn't work that way. First off, 3 out of every five rape victims, don't even report the crime, because of the stigma attached to it.

Of those who do, and in cases in which the offender is apprehended, and the case makes it to trial-- among women who were really raped-- less than 3 in 5 of the rapers are convicted. And less than 70% of those even convicted, do prison time. So what are the odds of a faker, who wasn't raped, getting an innocent guy, who didn't rape her, sent to prison? If the chances are only 16% among all rapists, it has got to be considerably less than that, among non rapists. And as you have still offered no evidence to contradict the common sense presumption, one must believe that these false prosecutions, about which you so concerned, that have such a poor chance of leading to a conviction, are a rarity, to begin with.

That is why the conviction rate for rape, is relevant to your complaint about women supposedly having innocent men, convicted of rape.

Duh.

No idea, what you are trying to say. If a woman is discovered to have lied about being raped, I would assume that she would absolutely be charged with filing a false police report. And if the case had made it to trial, the court is not going to regard perjury charges, lightly. "The way these cases are treated?" What does that mean? Please try to be specific, and explicative-- that is, speak plainly, and straightforwardly.

 

Let's see the poll.
I call bullshit on that. Most people who serve on juries, I believe take that responsibility seriously, meaning they try to adhere to our well known standard, of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That is why 42% of rape cases that even make it to court, end up in "not guilty" verdicts. That kind of shoots to hell your contention that half of society believe that a woman's word is all it should take, to send a man to prison.

Where the hell do your ideas, like that one, come from?

 

Common Law agrees with me. It is called a moot point when it's merely one's word against another's. Without corroboration or physical evidence, such cases would classically (and rightly) be thrown out. It is a perversion if things work otherwise.

 

A woman can’t change her mind about having sex when it’s over — because duh, it’s over. A woman can say no before and a woman can actually say stop during because she doesn’t like it.

I know woman who didn’t particularly enjoy sex and said afterwards it was no good, the man wasn’t attentive, the man didn’t know how to please and so on. I don’t know any woman who wants a man to be punished just for an unenjoyable sexual encounter. You are speaking like a man who can’t fathom that if a woman doesn’t enjoy sex with a particular man, she is not going to punish him with an accusation of sexual assault. If she she is disappointed in the sex, she can always say so. If you know women like this, you better not stick your penis into them. I literally know of no cases based on ‘I hated the sex we had, so I accused him of rape’.

Do you know when a woman feels raped — WHEN SHE ACTUALLY HAS BEEN RAPED. I have never read anything as ridiculous as your post. You really do appear to not understand women and you really appear to hate them. This seeps through in many of your posts.

 

I think the jury seeing a video of the accuser saying on video they consent and want to have sex with that man moments before sex occured, would be very favorable to the accused

 

Well if there was only testimony against me, I would hope that wouldnt be enough. If that means some rapists also get away... well I'm with Voltaire on this one- "it is better to run the risk of sparing the guilty than to condemn the innocent.”

 

You are sort of committing a logical fallacy. Just because it might be difficult for some, or many women to do that does not mean it is not difficult for women in a few cases to do that.
It's those few cases (whatever the numbers are exactly) that we should be concerned about. Isn't it?

Whether 5% or 95% of women who claim rape with no other evidence are believed, that does not affect how we should handle these cases, does it?

 

Indeed you are correct. But "very flavorable" is not really a "black and white" thing. So your statement there doesn't really have a precise logical meaning.

We can consider three categories of cases.

In one type of situation, a woman claims rape but there is no (other) evidence.
In the second type of situation, a woman claims rape with no evidence, except we do have strong evidence she probably had the intention of having sex with that man.
In the third type of situation, a woman claims she changed her mind and was raped, even though we have proof (video or witnesses of her signing a contract) that she initially consented to sex.

In which of these three types of cases should the man be convicted and found guilty? And if he is convicted, should he be given less prison time because of the type of situation? (Should he be given less prison time because, due to the type of evidence, we are less sure about whether he is actually guilty?)

If we're still willing to convict the man even though there was evidence that was "very favorable" to him, then what good was that evidence?

 

Yes, you would hope. But you would be very naive and ignorant about how the legal system works if you thought you could not be convicted. It happens ALL THE TIME.

Sometimes it can just depend on what type of jury you get, or even what part of the country it happened in.

I wonder what Voltaire would have had to say about women being awarded millions of dollars to accuse rich men of rape.

Or women appearing out of nowhere to accuse a rich man of rape after they see in the news that he is already being accused by one woman.

Reality today is probably too absurd for even Voltaire to have imagined.

There is one quote which Voltaire did make: "Anyone who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

 

if there is a video of consent moments before the sex occurred, the odds of convincing a jury of 12 that a rape occurred would be near zero

imagine if in the case this thread is about, there was such video...

you may have one, maybe even two jurors that always believe the woman no matter what, but 12, that would be much harder

 

In these type of situations, what is the probability that authorities would ever be able to find out that she was lying? What if it's the type of situation where she knows the chance is close to zero?
Because that is the typical situation in these cases.

Even if it was a 1% chance, would that really stop a woman who is desperate for money and thinks (and perhaps correctly so) that she can get a gigantic amount of money from this (if the man is rich)?

 

Let me try to explain it this way. If you take a case and multiply it by 100, all the details in those 100 cases are the same, and you know that in the other 99 of those cases the proper decision will be made, why should that affect how you vote on that one case?

It shouldn't. And yet you seem to insinuate that somehow it should. It shouldn't really matter how often women are believed. That should not have any effect on whether you believe a woman in any specific situation, or whether women should be believed in those type of situations in general.

What you are doing seems to be an emotional argument, that has little real logical basis. "We should believe women because they are so often not believed" is what your argument seems to be.

 

But "a woman still has the right to change her mind", doesn't she?

I think many people on a jury would still vote to convict.

In some cases the judge might even prevent the defense from telling the jury about that video, claiming it is "irrelevant" and would be likely to "prejudice" the jury.
That is what the judge did in the Mike Tyson trial.

In older times, like the 1950s, it would be absurd and there is no way the man would have ever been convicted. But today are crazy times.

I posted another story about a man who was convicted even though the woman met him on a casual sex hook-up site, had seen all his pictures, sent messages and information for him to meet her and have sex with her, and did not begin to change her mind until she found out he had a taxi waiting for him outside, some time after he was already together with her at her home, with her mother in the home too as a witness.
So men do get convicted in these type of situations.

Another case of Australia's sexual consent law

(Although there may have been no actual contract signed, this type of situation is very similar to that. We have very strong evidence that the woman intended to have sex and was going to consent to sex before a certain point of time)

 

so you would vote guilty? most would not...

the odds of someone making a video moments before sex consenting to said sex, then changing their mind, would be almost zero

 

That's what many people think, but it is not true. Many would vote guilty.

I've tried to pose this question in a poll in this forum, but most seem to refuse to give a direct answer, just saying "It depends". So I can't get a straight answer out of them.

You assume what is obvious to you is obvious to other people. It's dangerous to ignore this just because you assume other people in society would arrive at the correct decision like you.

I did not say I would vote guilty. I said many other people would.

 

not if there were video moments before sex with the accuser consenting to said sex, that is the point

 

Isn't that very similar to having proof that the woman was intending to have sex?
And yet, I have shown you links to several stories where the man was still found guilty in those situations.

 

For those who believe that the testimonies of a defendant cancel out the testimony of a witness, how should that concept apply when a defendant is being accused of two separate but similar crimes by two different witnesses?

When there do not exist two witnesses for the same crime, is it fair to still combine the testimony of the two witnesses together, to override the testimony of the defendant, and be able to find him guilty?

 

I could care less. That has NO logical bearing on how we should treat the case.

You call my post "ridiculous"? Look at your ridiculous argument, clearly an appeal to emotion with very little logical substantivity.

 

Let's clarify something, David Landbrecht. Common Law before 1975 agrees with you. Common Law after 2017 does not.

I totally agree with you that your position is the correct one. But you are being extremely ignorant by being unable to see and recognize the insanity that has taken place in society.

How many stories will need to be shown to you to realize that is not how things work any more, and that this is an issue?

 

Numerous stories that I have posted in this forum.

So far I think I must have posted at least 6 stories involving men who got convicted based only on the woman's testimony.

I've already posted several links in this thread, but if that is not enough for you, here's another one: Man falsely accused of Rape

Even if men do not end up being convicted of the crime, it can still create a nightmare for them. Look at the Julian Assange case, which involved complexities of international extradition and fear of being prosecuted for something else.
(He ended being trapped in an embassy room for 7 years and then spending a year in prison, in critical part because 2 women accused him of something that later turned out to be something that fell far short of actual rape, or what many normal people would consider to be rape. And it turned out they only even bothered to accuse him because they were angry after they found out he had been having sex with both of them)

 

having a video and having people say she wanted it are not the same, hard to argue with a video of a person in their own words

 

What I mean is what should happen in those type of cases.

Not necessarily just how the jury should vote, but what type of law society should have to direct the judge to do the proper thing.

If a woman is accusing a man of rape, and there is no other evidence, but we do have strong solid evidence that she seemed to have been intending to have sex with him, should he be convicted? That is the question.

I hate it when people just say it should all be decided on a case-by-case basis and totally avoid the issue.
Or when people just say that "A woman has the right to change her mind", because that does not actually directly have to do with the issue either.